Salinas City Council
September 6, 2022

ROAD NUMBER - Contains the number that was assigned to a road. The combination of Road Number, Road Name, and Road ID must be unique for each road section.

SECTION ID - Is an identifier that is unique for each section of a given street. Note that the Street ID and the Section ID combined describe the individual section. Therefore, that combination must be unique. The same Section ID can be reused as long as it is used in conjunction with a different Street ID each time.

SEGMENT LENGTH - Is the length in feet of the management section.

SELECT MANAGEMENT SECTIONS - Allows you to calculate PCI values based on selected management sections. If this button is marked, the management sections that have had records updated since the last calculations are displayed in a grid. Select the management sections you want included in the calculations from this grid.

SPECIAL - Check box is marked if the displayed inspection unit is non-representative of a section as a whole.

A p p e n d i x C P a g e | 8
SPECIAL UNIT - The information will either be Y or blank. Y is an indication that this inspection unit is in some way non-representative of the section as a whole, and would receive a different maintenance/rehabilitation treatment from the rest of the section.

STANDARD INSPECTION UNITS - Is the typical number of inspection units that would be used for a particular management section.

STOP-GAP APPLICATION INTERVAL - Indicates the number of years between the applications of stop-gap treatments.

STREET ID - Is an identifier that is unique for each street. The Street ID usually bears some similarity to the actual street name.

STREET NAME - Is the full name of the street including “Street”, “Way”, “Court” etc.

SURFACE - Describes the type of surface for a specific section of road. The options for this field are:
• A - AC for asphalt concrete,
• C - AC/PCC for asphalt concrete over Portland cement concrete, • O - AC/AC for overlays of asphalt concrete over asphalt concrete, • P - PCC for Portland cement concrete,
• S - ST for surface treatment (This Surface Type is not used very often, as it refers to roads that have neither AC or PCC, but have a surface treatment over dirt or gravel.)
TREATMENT - Contains the type of treatment the road received or will receive.

TREATMENT COST - Is an optional field giving the cost in dollars and cents of the treatment.

UNIT OF MEASURE - Displays the units of measure used to measure an item.

UNIT PRICE - Displays the price paid for an inventory item.

VISUAL PCI - Used to identify PCI calculations that have been determined based upon a visual inspection. If this check box is blank, then the PCI was extrapolated based upon the maintenance treatment that has been applied to a management section.

WEIGHTING FACTORS - Section displays the weighting factors established by your jurisdiction for the functional classes.

YEAR OF MAINTENANCE - Stores the proposed year of a treatment.

YEARS BETWEEN CRACK SEALS - Displays the number of years between the application of crack seals for the functional class with a specific severity.

A p p e n d i x C P a g e | 9
YEARS BETWEEN SURFACE SEALS - Displays the recommended number of years that should come between surface seal application for the functional class with the indicated severity.

YEARS TO CALCULATE - Stores the number of years you want to include in the Budget Needs calculation. The number of years cannot be less than 5 or more than 20.

REPORT DEFINITIONS
ZONES - Geographical areas of the city defined by city staff to aid in the development of a maintenance plan for residential roads.

CL - Centerline Mile - a measuring of the length of a road regardless of the width of the road.

LM - Lane Mile - a measurement of the length of all the lanes for a given FC or area.

ACTION / TREATMENT - A proposed type of rehabilitation work that should be used on a given road segment, based on PCI, FC and engineering evaluation.

ANNUAL BUDGET - The amount of money that is available each year to be used for pavement maintenance. These funds can come from various sources and can vary from year to year, although it is generally a fixed figure.

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-462, Version: 1
All Way Stop at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza Approve a Resolution approving the plan for an all way stop application at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/31/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS, TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC DIVISION FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ANDREW EASTERLING, TRAFFIC ENGINEER
TITLE: ALL WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF GARNER AVENUE

AT PACIFIC AVENUE/ACOSTA PLAZA
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution approving the plan for an all way stop application at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended City Council approve a Resolution approving the plan for an all way stop application at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Staff received a request to evaluate the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza. Staff conducted a traffic analysis and determined that there is sufficient crossing demand to warrant the installation of a marked crosswalk. Staff developed a conceptual design to improve the intersection including considerations of ADA curb ramps, bus stops, and intersection control.

However, the ultimate design requires time and funding to perform a survey and develop engineering plans. An interim plan was developed to install an all way stop at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza to make incremental improvements before the ultimate design is complete. Staff recommends the approval of an all way stop application at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza.

BACKGROUND:

Staff received a request from the superintendent of the Alisal Union School District Jim Koenig to evaluate the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza for the potential of a crosswalk. Staff conducted an analysis of the intersection and determined that in accordance with the City’s Crosswalk Policy (Attachment 1) a marked crosswalk could be installed. However, a new crosswalk would require additional enhancements and must be connected to ADA compliant pedestrian ramps, as required by Title II regulations.

Page | 2
Staff developed a conceptual design (Attachment 2) for the new crosswalk, applying the design guidelines from the City’s Crosswalk Policy and considering ADA requirements. The new ramps will require the relocation of a drainage inlet, which will require surveying and engineering design.

Additionally, two Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) stops are located at the intersection and must be considered as part of the design. Staff coordinated with partners at MST and the Alisal Union School District to develop a conceptual design that worked for each stakeholder. The opinion of probable costs to construct the improvements including survey, design, curb extensions and the installation of new storm drain inlets is over $250K. The ultimate design will require additional funds that are not currently programed for these improvements. The City plans to seek grant funding in the future as part of a larger Safe Routes to School Project to finance the ultimate improvements. In the meantime, staff worked with the school district to develop a more immediate solution and recommends an all way stop plan (Attachment 3).

The City’s standard for traffic control devices is the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). The manual establishes the criteria for which stop sign applications should be installed. The CA-MUTCD states that in order for an all way stop condition to be warranted, the intersection should either have five or more reported correctable collisions in a 12- month period or have an average of at least 300 vehicles per hour from the major approach and 200 vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists per hour from the minor street approaches for an 8-hour period of the day. The manual also allows for reductions to these thresholds if the approach speed on the major street exceeds 40mph. Staff conducted a stop warrant analysis and concluded that neither the traffic volume nor the collision history at the intersection meet the conventional CAMUTCD all way stop warrants (Attachment 4).

When CA-MUTCD warrants are not met, the guidelines also allow for engineering judgement to consider some additional criteria when evaluating potential all way stop applications. The need to control vehicle and pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes may also be considered in an engineering study for multi-way stop applications. The intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza provides direct access to Dr. Martin Luther King Academy School and based on 108 survey responses collected during the Safe Routes to School Plan development approximately 74% of the students walk or bike to school. With that information, staff conducted a pedestrian count on February 2, 2022. The single day count found that there were 191 pedestrian crossings Garner Avenue at the intersection during the peak periods from 7:00AM-9:00AM and 4:00PM-6:00PM. The application of an all way stop at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza would control the direction of vehicle traffic that conflicts with pedestrian crossing route serving Dr. Martin Luther King Academy School and Jesse G. Sanchez Elementary School. Pedestrian crossing conditions would benefit from controlling the conflicting movement, however vehicles traveling along Garner Avenue would experience some additional delays. Because of the crossing benefits to pedestrians and the high pedestrian volumes, staff recommends the approval of an all way stop application at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORATION COMMISION:

The all way stop at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza was presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its August 11, 2022 meeting. The Page | 3
Commission voted 6-0 to recommend City Council approve a Resolution approving the plan for an all way stop application at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The City of Salinas has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301, Class 1(c)) because the actions consist of operation and minor alteration of an existing City street.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The proposed all way stop at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza improves walking conditions and safe routes to school. This action supports the Council of Public Safety and Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Street signs are installed and maintained by Public Works staff. Traffic enforcement is coordinated with the Police Department.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The estimated labor and material cost to install the multi-way stop at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza is estimated to be $4,000 using the existing job order contract for traffic control devices. Alternatively, the City’s maintenance staff may be able to perform this work depending on their availability and it will cost much less if the City performs the work. Sufficient funding is available in the current streets maintenance budget to fund the proposed all way stop.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1: City of Salinas Crosswalk Policy
Attachment 2: Garner Avenue and Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza Improvements Conceptual Design Attachment 3: Garner Avenue and Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza All Way Stop Plan Attachment 4: Garner Avenue and Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza Stop Warrant Analysis 1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE PLAN FOR

AN ALL WAY STOP APPLICATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF GARNER

AVENUE AT PACIFIC AVENUE/ACOSTA PLAZA
WHEREAS, the City received a request to evaluate the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza; and
WHEREAS, staff conducted a traffic analysis and determined that there is sufficient crossing demand to warrant the installation of a marked crosswalk; and WHEREAS, staff developed a conceptual design to improve the intersection including considerations of ADA curb ramps, bus stops, and intersection control. However, the ultimate design requires time and funding to perform survey and develop engineering plans; and WHEREAS, an interim plan was developed to install an all way stop application at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza is proposed to make incremental improvements before the ultimate design is complete; and WHEREAS, staff recommends the approval of an all way stop application at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2022, the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend City Council approve a Resolution approving the plan for an all way stop application at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza; and WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that the implementing the parking restrictions is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301, Class 1). The project consists of the operation, repair, or minor alteration of public streets involving no expansion of use. There would be no significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby approve a Resolution approving the plan for an all way stop application at the intersection of Garner Avenue at Pacific Avenue/Acosta Plaza.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 6th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
2 APPROVED:
________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
Prepared for:

City of Salinas
June 2014
SJ11_1252

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
Table of Contents

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

2. Background and Context..............................................................................................................................2 Policy Context .......................................................................................................................................................................2 General Plan...........................................................................................................................................................................2 Pedestrian Plan .....................................................................................................................................................................3 Existing Marked Crosswalk Inventory ..........................................................................................................................4

3. Crosswalk Fundamentals ..............................................................................................................................7 Types of Crosswalks............................................................................................................................................................7 Where Is Crossing the Street Legal? ............................................................................................................................8 Why do Cities Mark Crosswalks? ...................................................................................................................................9 Steps to Identify Candidate Locations for Marked Crosswalks .........................................................................9 When to Install Marked Crosswalks .......................................................................................................................... 10

4. Uncontrolled Crossing Enhancement Toolbox........................................................................................13 crosswalk Safety Research............................................................................................................................................. 13 Mid-Block Crossings........................................................................................................................................................ 13 Treatment Selection......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Treatment Options ........................................................................................................................................................... 17

5. Controlled Crosswalk Treatment Toolbox ...............................................................................................25 Preferred Crossing Treatments.................................................................................................................................... 25 Enhanced Crossing Treatments................................................................................................................................... 28

6. Creative Crosswalk Guidelines ...................................................................................................................42 Guidelines for the implementation of creative crosswalks .............................................................................. 44

7. Education, Enforcement, and Encouragement Programs......................................................................49 Education ............................................................................................................................................................................. 49 Enforcement........................................................................................................................................................................ 49 Encouragement ................................................................................................................................................................. 50 Pedestrian Collision Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 56 Primary Collision Factor ................................................................................................................................................. 60 Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
Day of the Week................................................................................................................................................................ 61 Weather Conditions......................................................................................................................................................... 62 Age Statistics ...................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Near Schools....................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................. 63 Appendices
Appendix A: Citywide Crosswalk Inventory............................................................................................................................. 51 Appendix B: Pedestrian Level of Service Calculations......................................................................................................... 52 Appendix C: Pedestrian Collision Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 55 List of Figures
Figure 1: City of Salinas Map ...........................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 2: Marked Crosswalk Placement Flowchart............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations ..................................................................... 12 Figure 4: Salinas Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions, 2005-2010 ............................................................................................. 57 Figure 5: Salinas Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions Resulting in Injuries and/or Fatalities, 2005-2010.................. 59 Figure 6: Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions for School-Age Children Occurring within ¼-Mile of Schools......... 65 Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
List of Tables
Table 1: Recommendations for Installing Marked Crosswalks and Other Needed Pedestrian Improvements at Uncontrolled Locations.............................................................................................................................................................. 15 Table 2: Application of Enhanced Treatments for Uncontrolled Locations................................................................ 17 Table 3: Uncontrolled Crossings: Geometric Treatments .................................................................................................. 18 Table 4: Uncontrolled Crossings: Striping and Signage..................................................................................................... 21 Table 5: Uncontrolled Crossings: Beacon, Lighting, and Signal Treatments.............................................................. 23 Table 6: Controlled Intersections: Geometric Treatments ............................................................................................... 29 Table 7: Controlled Intersections: Striping and Signage .................................................................................................. 34 Table 8: Controlled Intersections: Signal Hardware and Operational Measures...................................................... 36 Table 9: Pedestrian LOS Calculations ....................................................................................................................................... 53 Table 10: Top Pedestrian-Vehicle Collision Locations, Salinas, 2005-2010............................................................... 56 Table 11: Top Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions Locations, Injury or Fatality, 2005-2010.......................................... 58 Table 12: Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) for Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions in Salinas, 2005-2010................ 60 Table 13: Age Ranges for Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions in Salinas, 2005-2010...................................................... 63

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
1 1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Salinas initiated development of these Crosswalk Policy Guidelines to prescribe a formal and transparent process for marked crosswalk implementation. The City regularly receives requests to install marked crosswalks from residents, businesses, and institutions. However, designing a safe roadway crossing for pedestrians is a complex process; the installation of crosswalk striping alone does not necessarily constitute a safe pedestrian crossing.

The Crosswalk Policy Guidelines are aimed at improving pedestrian safety and enhancing pedestrian mobility. A comprehensive pedestrian safety strategy contains a three-pronged approach of engineering, enforcement, and education programs. This document focuses on engineering elements, such as pedestrian crossing treatments and intersection design.

This document describes the function of crosswalks and their legal context in the California Vehicle Code.

It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of marked crosswalks and summarizes research in the United States focused on pedestrian safety and crosswalks. It provides a summary of best practices related to numerous pedestrian treatments, including geometric, signage and striping, and signal hardware or operational measure treatments.

The purpose of this document is to enable the City to respond to crosswalk requests in a manner that improves pedestrian accessibility and maintains public safety. It provides information to be used when making decisions about where standard crosswalks (two, parallel white stripes) can be marked; where crosswalks with special treatments, such as high-visibility crosswalks, flashing beacons and other special features, should be employed; and where crosswalks will not be marked due to safety concerns resulting from volume, speed, or sight distance issues.

This report was produced in cooperation with the City of Salinas. The suggestions presented in this report are based on local knowledge, data analysis, and discussions with the City of Salinas. These suggestions, which reflect general knowledge of best practices in pedestrian design and safety, are intended to guide City staff in making decisions for future safety improvement projects in the City, and they may not incorporate all factors that may be relevant to the pedestrian safety issues in the City. Final implementation of these guidelines will at all times involve engineering judgment.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
2 2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
The City of Salinas has several planning-level documents that provide the primary policy context for this Crosswalk Policy. These documents provide policy support for pedestrian-friendly land uses, built environment characteristics, and design standards in Salinas. This chapter provides a summary of the City’s relevant plans and polices that address pedestrian safety, including the General Plan and Pedestrian Plan.

POLICY CONTEXT

GENERAL PLAN
The City’s current General Plan (September 2002) includes several elements that address the pedestrian environment and safety, including the housing element, conservation/open space element, community design element, and circulation element. The General Plan used new urbanism principles to guide the future transportation and land use development in the City. The following goals and policies provide support for pedestrian-friendly design within Salinas:
 Community Design Element, Goal 3: Create a community that promotes a pedestrian-friendly, livable environment.
o Policy CD-3.1: Create and preserve the distinct, identifiable neighborhoods that have traditional neighborhood development (TND) characteristics. Specifically, each neighborhood should have the following characteristics:
 An approximately 5-minute walk from perimeter to center;  Housing densities should increase from perimeter to center (i.e., neighborhoods should be more densely populated at the center);
 The neighborhood center should be the location of retail space, office space, and upper story residential above commercial and office space;
 A civic or public space such as a plaza or park should be at the neighborhood center;  Small parks should be distributed throughout the neighborhood;  Schools should lie within the neighborhood and be easily accessible and within walking distance;
 When not adjacent to agricultural operations, which may require a variety of buffering techniques, the neighborhood edge should be bordered by either a natural corridor or the edge of an adjacent neighborhood across a pedestrian-friendly boulevard; and Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
3  Front yard setbacks should decrease from the neighborhood edge to neighborhood center.
o Policy CD-3.6: Provide and maintain a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere by encouraging “pedestrian zones” with increased landscaping, use of traffic-calming techniques on local streets, adequate separation of automobile traffic, and the inclusion of amenities such as lighted crosswalks and increased lighting along sidewalks. o Policy CD-3.8: Promote the use of alternative modes of transportation, including bus, rail, bicycling, and walking.
 Circulation Element, Goal C-5: Provide safe routes to school, work, shopping, and recreation for pedestrians.
o Policy C-5.1: Increase availability of safe and well-maintained sidewalks in all areas of the City. o Policy C-5.2: Encourage all new bus stops and changes in existing bus stops to take pedestrian access into consideration.
o Policy C-5.3: Ensure that all pedestrian route improvements meet with ADA standards for accessibility.
o Policy C-5.4: Encourage parking lot designs that promote pedestrian access and safety. o Policy C-5.5: Improve the walking environment by providing safe and attractive sidewalks, cut-throughs, and walkways, for both recreational and commuting purposes.  Housing
o Policy H-1.10: Promote the development of neighborhoods, or sub-communities, designed to encourage pedestrian and mass transit by offering employment or services for the daily needs of residents, while reducing the need for autos.
 Conservation/Open Space
o Policy COS-6.4: Support alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, and public transit, and develop bike- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods to reduce emissions associated with automobile use.
o Policy COS-7.12: Link activity centers, recreational opportunities, transit nodes, and other services to the integrated trails network.

PEDESTRIAN PLAN
The City of Salinas’ Pedestrian Plan was adopted in May 2004 to support the principles and policies of the City’s General Plan. The Pedestrian Plan includes goals and strategies to increase walking in the City in Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
4 support of health, transportation, quality of life/social, economic, and environmental benefits. The plan specifically outlines these goals:

1. Promote the development and design of pedestrian facilities that are convenient, safe, attractive, comfortable, interesting, and interconnected to provide continuity of travel

2. Reduce the number of pedestrian-related accidents in Salinas

3. Condition New Development to install appropriate streets, sidewalks, pedestrian access ramps, traffic calming measures, lighting, and related facilities to encourage walking

4. Develop a Traffic Calming Policy to address vehicular speeds in residential and commercial areas

5. Develop a Suggested Routes to School Program for all elementary schools in Salinas

6. Educate the general public to increase the number of overall walking trips within Salinas

7. Identify needs of walking districts or areas to increase walking trips The Pedestrian Plan includes strong policy support, as well as a project list for infrastructure upgrades and ongoing programs to encourage walking in the City. Appendix A of the Plan also includes a Pedestrian Facilities Toolbox, with design guidance for some pedestrian facilities and treatments, such as sidewalks/walkways, curb ramps, crosswalks, transit stops, driveways, curb radii, and roadway lighting.

The Plan’s guidance for marked crosswalks has a three-pronged approach as follows:
 Accessibility – The crosswalk be located for convenient pedestrian access, preferably at controlled intersections (signals, all-way stops, etc.).
 Design – The design, use, and installation of crosswalks shall conform to the Caltrans Traffic Manual and Federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), most recent edition.1  Safety – Crosswalk markings must be placed to include a ramp so that a wheelchair does not have to leave the crosswalk to access the ramp.

EXISTING MARKED CROSSWALK INVENTORY
An up-to-date inventory of existing pedestrian facilities is an important and efficient approach to identify gaps and deficiencies in the existing pedestrian network. The City maintains this inventory in a computer aided drafting (CAD) database, and applies it to citywide Suggested Routes to Schools maps for distribution

1 As of April 2013, the most recent editions include the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2012), based on the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009).

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
5 to local schools in the City. This section summarizes the existing marked crosswalk inventory within Salinas, current as of April 2013. Figure 1 presents a map of the City of Salinas.

Appendix A presents a Citywide map showing existing marked crosswalks in the City, with a note if they are located at a stop-sign or traffic signal, in a school zone, or have been upgraded with other enhancements. Twenty-eight (28) enhanced crosswalks are currently marked in Salinas, generally at uncontrolled locations near schools, such as El Gablan Elementary, on Linwood Drive at Sequoia Street as shown in the photo below. These crossings are enhanced with high visibility, continental style markings with alternating white and fluorescent yellow-green blocks, which is an application unique to Salinas, and “LOOK” stencils at each corner encouraging pedestrians to look both ways before crossing.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
6 Figure 1: City of Salinas Map
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
7 3. CROSSWALK FUNDAMENTALS
Pedestrian crossing and right-of-way laws vary state to state, and are often a source of driver or pedestrian uncertainty and confusion for when crossing is legal. This section outlines the types of crosswalks, where crossing the street is legal in California, and the steps the City should take in identifying locations for marked crosswalks.

TYPES OF CROSSWALKS
Crosswalks are primarily classified by three characteristics:
1) Whether they are marked (demarcated with striping on the street) or unmarked (no striping) 2) Whether they are controlled (by a traffic signal or stop-sign) or uncontrolled (with no intersection control)
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
8 3) Whether they are located at an intersection (where two streets meet) or mid-block (between intersections)
The following section outlines where crossing the street is legal in California. Based on pedestrian safety and crosswalk marking research, some types of crosswalks are safer than others (e.g., generally marked, controlled crosswalks at an intersection have lower risk of pedestrian collisions than a mid-block, uncontrolled crosswalk). A summary of relevant pedestrian safety research is provided in Chapter 4.

Chapters 4 and 5 in this document provide guidance on why, where, and how to treat crosswalks at uncontrolled and controlled locations, respectively, based on this research.

WHERE IS CROSSING THE STREET LEGAL?
In California, a legal crosswalk exists where a sidewalk meets a street, regardless of whether the crosswalk is marked (i.e., with or without striping to denote the crosswalk). Pedestrians may legally cross any street, except at unmarked locations between immediately adjacent signalized crossings, or where crossing is expressly prohibited. Marked crosswalks reinforce the location and legitimacy of a pedestrian crossing.

These legal statues are contained in the California Vehicle Code (CVC) as follows:
 Section 275 defines a legal crosswalk as:
o That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.
o Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface (such as a marked midblock crossing).  Section 21950 describes right-of-way at a crosswalk:

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
9 o The driver of a marked vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
 Section 21955 describes where pedestrians may not cross a street:
o Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.

WHY DO CITIES MARK CROSSWALKS?
Sidewalks and crosswalks are essential links within a pedestrian network. Whether commuting, running an errand, exercising, or wandering, pedestrians will need safe and convenient crossing opportunities to reach their destinations. A marked crosswalk has three (3) primary functions:
1) To create reasonable expectations where pedestrians may cross a roadway 2) To improve predictability of pedestrian actions and movement 3) To channel pedestrians to designated crossing locations (often selected for their optimal sight distance)
Advantages of Marked Crosswalks
Marked crosswalks offer the following advantages:
 They help pedestrians find their way across complex intersections  They can designate the shortest path
 They can direct pedestrians to locations of best sight distance  They assure pedestrians of their legal right to cross a roadway at an intersection or mid-block crossing
This last bullet point is important. The California Vehicle Code gives the right-of-way to pedestrians at any marked or unmarked crosswalk (as noted above), although the law is not always obeyed by road users, including both drivers and pedestrians. Drivers often fail to yield the right-of-way without the visual cue of a marked crosswalk. Pedestrians also do not always know the right-of-way law, and will either wait for a gap in traffic, or assert their right-of-way by stepping in to the roadway. Strategies for this challenge are discussed in the Education and Enforcement section of this document, Chapter 6.

STEPS TO IDENTIFY CANDIDATE LOCATIONS FOR MARKED CROSSWALKS Identifying candidate locations for marked crosswalks involves two steps.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
10 The first step is to locate the places people would like to cross the street. These locations are called pedestrian desire lines, which represent the most desirable, and typically most direct, places that people want to cross a street. Pedestrian desire lines are influenced by elements of the roadway network, such as transit stops, and nearby land uses (homes, schools, parks, trails, commercial centers, etc.). This information provides a basis for identifying pedestrian crossing improvement areas and prioritizing such improvements, thereby creating a convenient, connected, and continuous walking environment.

The second step in identifying candidate locations for marked crosswalks is to identify where people can cross safely. The primary consideration in this step is adequate stopping sight distance. Of all road users, pedestrians have the highest risk of injury in a collision because they are the least protected. The crosswalk safety treatment toolboxes in Chapters 4 and 5 provide numerous options for enhancing pedestrian safety at uncontrolled and controlled crossings, respectively, with treatment selection based on the overall context of the crosswalk – including surrounding land uses, roadway characteristics, and user characteristics.

WHEN TO INSTALL MARKED CROSSWALKS
Once candidate locations are identified, an engineering evaluation should be conducted to determine if a marked crosswalk should be installed at an uncontrolled or mid-block location, and if so, what visibility enhancements should be included in the design. Crossings should be marked where all of the following occur:
 Sufficient demand exists to justify the installation of a crosswalk  Sufficient sight distance as measured by stopping sight distance calculations exists and/or sight distance will be improved prior to crosswalk marking
 Safety considerations do not preclude a crosswalk
Figures 2 and 3 describe the overall procedures from the moment City staff receives a request for a new marked crosswalk (or considers removing an existing marked crosswalk) to the installation of the treatment.

As described, the first steps to determine the appropriate location and treatment for the crosswalk include a staff field visit.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
11 Figure 2: Marked Crosswalk Placement Flowchart
Severe injury or fatal pedestrian
collision occurs
Use Salinas Pedestrian
Toolbox and engineering
judgment to determine
treatment options
Citizen walkability audits identify a
location for marked crosswalk
installation or improvement
Citizen surveys identify a key location
for marked crosswalk installation or
improvement
if yes
if no
Are demand
considerations met? (see
Figure 6)
This is not a good
location for a
marked crossing.

Action will result in
Within one month, begin
Traffic Investigation
process, including staff
field visit
Action will result in
Action may result in
Action may result in
City Staff receives request for a marked
crosswalk installation or improvement
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
12 Figure 6: Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations Note: Where no engineering action is recommended in Chart 2, consider applicable education and enforcement efforts. if yes
if no
if yes
if no
if yes
if no
if yes
if no
if yes
if no
feasible
infeasible
20 pedestrians per hour
(in any two hours, not
necessarily consecutive)
cross at the location
Location along a suggested route to
school path or which connects two
pedestrian generators such as a
school, park, bus stop, or hospital
expected to generate pedestrians on a
regular basis
Nearest appropriately
marked or protected
crosswalk is at least 300
feet or more away
Insufficient need
to justify a
marked crosswalk
Low speed (posted or prima
facie 25 MPH), two-lane roadway
Pedestrians can be easily
seen from a feasible
stopping sight distance
Direct pedestrians
to the nearest
marked or
protected crosswalk
Can the sight distance
obstruction be removed or
the speed limit lowered?
Use Salinas Pedestrian
Toolbox and engineering
judgment to determine
treatment options
Direct pedestrians to the
nearest marked crosswalk
or consider installing stop
sign, signal, or grade
separation
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
13 4. UNCONTROLLED CROSSING ENHANCEMENT TOOLBOX
This section presents best practices for the installation of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections and mid-block locations. Uncontrolled crossings require additional consideration during planning and design since traffic signals and stop signs are not provided to require motorists to stop – they must recognize the pedestrian and yield accordingly. Thus, providing appropriate enhancements to improve the visibility and safety of pedestrians crossing the street at an uncontrolled location is critical.

CROSSWALK SAFETY RESEARCH
Several studies of pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossings have been completed, from which conflicting research had emerged in the past. Studies conducted in San Diego in the 1970s showed that pedestrian collision risk at marked, uncontrolled crosswalks was greater than at unmarked crossings. This led many cities to remove marked crosswalks, as they were suspected of providing a false sense of security that drivers would yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. However, a more recent study2 by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) comprehensively reviewed crossing safety at 1,000 marked and 1,000 matching unmarked crosswalks in 30 U.S. cities, controlling for site context factors. The study concluded that site factors related to pedestrian-involved collisions included pedestrian average daily traffic (ADT), vehicle ADT, number of lanes, median type, and the region of the U.S. At uncontrolled locations on two-lane roads and multi-lane roads with ADT below 12,000 vehicles, FHWA found that the presence of a marked crosswalk alone, compared with an unmarked crosswalk, made no statistically significant difference in the pedestrian crash rate. However, on multi-lane roads with an ADT of greater than 12,000 vehicles (without a raised median) and 15,000 vehicles (with a raised median) the presence of a marked

2 Zeeger, C., J. Stewart, and H. Huang. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations.

Publication FHWA-RD-01-142, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001.

Mid-Block Crossings
Crosswalks can be marked at intersections
and mid-block points. Mid-block crossings
play an important role for pedestrian
access; without mid-block crossing
locations, pedestrians may face the
undesirable choice to detour to a
controlled crossing location, detour to an
intersection where crossing is legal even if
not controlled, or cross illegally (if the
midblock crossing is between two
signalized intersections). Where signals are
spaced far apart (generally more than 600-
800 feet), pedestrians may have to detour
several minutes to a controlled crossing
location. Pedestrians are more likely to
wait for a gap in traffic and cross at an
unmarked location, rather than travel a
distance out of their way to find a marked
crosswalk. Mid-block crossings also offer
an important safety consideration: fewer
potential conflict points between
pedestrians and motorists.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
14 crosswalk without other improvements was associated with a statistically significant higher rate of pedestrian collisions compared to sites with an unmarked crosswalk.

The results of the study should not encourage city officials to simply remove (or fail to install) marked crosswalks. Rather, the report suggested adding crosswalk enhancements to the marked crosswalks to balance mobility needs with safety needs. These improvements include providing raised medians on multilane roads, installing traffic and pedestrian signals where warranted, adding curb extensions, providing adequate lighting, and designing intersections with tighter turn radii.

In the FHWA study, about 70 percent of the pedestrian crashes occurred at marked crosswalks on multilane roads. Of the pedestrian crashes at marked crosswalks, 17.6 percent were classified as multiple-threat collisions. Multiple-threat collisions occur as one
car slows down to allow pedestrians to cross, but a
second car approaching from behind in the
adjacent lane may not see the pedestrian, as
illustrated in the image to the right. The slowing
vehicle blocks the sight line of both the pedestrian
and the second motorist, leading to the
pedestrian-vehicle collision. Multi-lane roadways
are therefore not well-served by unmarked or
marked crosswalks alone. At these sites, the study
concluded, engineers should consider
countermeasures that provide additional safety to
pedestrians and alert motorists to upcoming crosswalks. These countermeasures include advanced yield lines with corresponding signs informing motorists where to yield. Other more substantial measures may also be considered, such as signalization, illumination, or raised medians. The summary in Table 1 below shows when marking a crosswalk only should not be considered.

Multiple threat conflicts on multi-lane roadways occur where a vehicle yielding to a pedestrian inhibits sight lines to another oncoming vehicle.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
15 TABLE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLING MARKED CROSSWALKS AND OTHER NEEDED

PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AT UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS
With these studies as a backdrop, the remainder of this chapter outlines a decision making process to identify appropriate treatments and presents a variety of treatment options to mitigate safety, visibility, or operational concerns at specific locations.

TREATMENT SELECTION
At uncontrolled locations, a marked crosswalk with striping only may not provide adequate visibility to the pedestrian crossing, especially at high volume, high speed, or multi-lane crossings. Enhancements should Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
16 be considered for installation to supplement crosswalk striping. Appropriate treatments should be identified based on:
 Site characteristics: presence of pedestrian desire lines, available sight distance and visibility, lighting
 Geometric configuration of the roadway: number of vehicle travel lanes and presence of curb extensions or median refuge islands
 Travel data: 85th percentile speeds, posted speed limits, and average daily traffic (ADT) volumes.

Marked crosswalks alone should not be installed on multi-lane streets (two or more lanes per direction; three or more lanes total) under the following conditions3:
 Speeds of greater than 40 miles per hour
 Average daily traffic volumes (ADT) greater than 12,000 without a raised median or pedestrian refuge island
 Average daily traffic volumes (ADT) greater than 15,000 with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island
Locations with speeds and ADT volumes below these thresholds may also warrant enhancements. The Uncontrolled Treatment Toolbox outlines considerations for the use of enhancements in various contexts as summarized in Table 2. This Toolbox may be used to identify potential treatments at a candidate uncontrolled crosswalk location based on the results of Figures 2 and 3 in Chapter 3.

A calculation of Pedestrian Level of Service forms the basis for the treatment identification. Pedestrian Level of Service is the average delay experienced by pedestrians as they are waiting to cross the street. Expected motorist compliance is another other key variable for treatment identification. Compliance is based on field observations and engineering judgment. It is meant to reflect typical motorist responses to pedestrians attempting to cross the street. If drivers are likely to stop for a pedestrian, the compliance is rated “high.” If drivers rarely stop for pedestrians, compliance is “low.” The compliance rate should be assumed to be low for all locations where the speed limit is greater than 30 MPH. Table 2 summarizes the appropriate treatments based on level of enhancement needed (with the most significant enhancement required with the worst LOS and compliance rates).

3 California MUTCD, Section 3B. 18.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
17 TABLE 2:

APPLICATION OF ENHANCED TREATMENTS FOR UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS Expected Motorist Compliance
Low
(or Speed >30 mph) Moderate High

LOS A-D
(average delay up
to 30 seconds)
LEVEL 3
2 lane road: In-pavement
flashers, overhead flashing
beacons
Multi-lane road: RRFB
Plus LEVELS 1 and 2
LEVEL 2
Curb Extensions, Bus Bulb,
Reduced Curb Radii,
Staggered Pedestrian
Refuge
Plus LEVEL 1
LEVEL 1
High Visibility Crosswalk
Markings, Advanced Yield
Lines, Advance Signage

LOS E-F
(average delay
greater than 30
seconds)
LEVEL 4
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, RRFB,
or Direct Pedestrians to Nearest
Safe Crossing
Plus LEVELS 1 and 2
LEVEL 3
2 lane road: In-pavement
flashers, overhead flashing
beacons
Multi-lane road: RRFB
Plus LEVELS 1 and 2
LEVEL 2
Curb Extensions, Reduced
Curb Radii, Staggered
Pedestrian Refuge
Plus LEVEL 1
Notes: A pedestrian refuge island (median) is recommended for consideration in all scenarios with more than 2 lanes of traffic.

Level 1 represents a minor intervention, appropriate for situations with lower speeds and traffic volumes and high driver yielding rates. Higher levels represent more significant interventions, as may be needed on higher speed or volume roadways, wider roadways, and roadways where motorists are less likely to yield to pedestrians. Treatments may be combined with higher level treatments added to lower level treatments (i.e., flashing beacons with curb extensions). Additional funding sources should be identified as needed for these enhancements. Failing to provide an enhanced crosswalk and/or removing a marked crosswalk should be an option of last resort.

Application of Table 2 is operationalized by the XWalk+ Tool that accompanies this policy. The Tool is embedded in an Excel platform and was developed to guide the user through application of the methods and processes summarized in this document. It should not replace understanding of local context or application of engineering judgment, but may be used to supplement this document.

TREATMENT OPTIONS
The following tables described preferred pedestrian safety treatments for uncontrolled locations with different roadway characteristics:
 Table 3: Geometric Treatments
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
18  Table 4: Striping and Signage
 Table 5: Signal Hardware and Operational Measures
Within each table, devices are categorized in three levels based on the level of safety concern they are meant to address: Level 1 (all cases), Level 2 (enhancements), and Level 3 (advanced enhancements).

Categories of improvements are cumulative; for example, a Level 2 device should also include appropriate Level 1 devices.

TABLE 3:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
6-1. Fewer Travel Lanes (“Road Diet”)
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Fewer travel lanes decrease roadway
width and crosswalk length, reduce
speeds, reduce left-turn and rear-end
collisions, and often eliminate the
multiple-threat collision. It takes an
average pedestrian almost four seconds
to cross each additional travel lane.

Therefore, reducing the number of
travel lanes minimizes the amount of
time that pedestrians are in the
crosswalk. More travel lanes than
necessary can also increase vehicle
travel speeds; research has shown that
the severity of pedestrian collisions
increases with vehicle travel speed.

Where fewer travel lanes are not
possible, travel lanes can be narrowed
to as little as nine feet, especially leftand right-turn pockets.

Level 1
$20/LF4

4 Cost includes removal of existing pavement markings and repainting. Assumes existing curbs are to remain as is.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
19 TABLE 3:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
6-2. Removal of Sight-Distance
Obstructions
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
If objects impede sight-distance, this
may result in an unsafe condition where
motorists and pedestrians are unable to
see each other. Items such as parked
cards, signage, landscaping, fencing,
and street furniture should be placed in
a location that will not obstruct sight
distance.

Level 1 $150/EA5
6-3. Pedestrian Refuge Island
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Raised islands are placed in the center
of the roadway separating opposing
lanes of traffic with cutouts or ramps for
accessibility along the pedestrian path.

Median refuge islands are
recommended where right-of-way
allows and conditions warrant. Studies
show medians are one of the most
important safety enhancements
available for crosswalks. They simplify
complicated multi-lane crossings by
breaking the crossings/conflicts into
two stages.

Level 1 $130/LF6

5 Item removed is anticipated to be no larger than a sign and post. 6 Cost includes new curb and concrete barrier. Assumes a 6 foot median.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
20 TABLE 3:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
6-4. Curb Extensions
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Curb extensions extend the curb and
sidewalks further into the roadway,
shortening the length of the crosswalk.

They act as a traffic calming device by
narrowing the effective width of the
roadway and slowing turning speeds.

Because they extend into the roadway,
often past parallel-parked vehicles, they
improve visibility for pedestrians. The
also provide space for street furniture,
landscaping, bicycle parking, and signs
and signal poles. Curb extensions can
be constructed with reduced curb radii
and to accommodate ADA
improvements, such as directional curb
ramps.

Level 1 $140/LF7
6-5. Split Pedestrian Crossover
(SPXO)
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
This measure is similar to traditional
median refuge islands; the difference is
that the crosswalks in the roadway are
staggered such that a pedestrian
crosses half of the street and then walks
toward traffic to reach the second half
of the crosswalk. This measure must be
designed for accessibility by including
rails and truncated domes to direct
sight-impaired pedestrians along the
path of travel.

Level 1
Note: see Table
11 for a
Pedestrian
Signal
$130/LF8
6-6. Raised Crosswalk
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Raised crosswalks are speed tables (flattopped speed humps) outfitted with crosswalk markings and signage,
providing pedestrians with a level street
crossing. By raising the level of the
crossing, vehicles drive more slowly
through the crosswalk and pedestrians
are more visible to approaching
motorists.

Level 2 $4,000/EA

7 Cost includes removal of existing curb, new curb, new sidewalk, and new bollards. Cost does not include curb ramps. 8 Same materials as 6-3
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
21 TABLE 3:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
6-7. Pedestrian Overpass/Underpass
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
This measure consists of a pedestrian or
pedestrian/bicycle overpass or
underpass of a roadway. It provides
complete separation from motor vehicle
traffic, normally where no other
pedestrian facility is available, and
connects off-road trails and paths
across major barriers. Overpasses and
underpasses should be used as a
measure of last resort because of their
cost and barriers to their
effective/efficient use, with
topographical and desire line
considerations influencing their design.

Personal security concerns must also be
addressed in the design of these
facilities.

Level 3 $150/SF
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.

TABLE 4:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
7-1. High Visibility Markings
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
All uncontrolled marked crosswalks
should feature high-visibility markings.

Various striping patterns are available.

The City of Salinas has recently installed
white and fluorescent yellow green
continental style markings. Triple four
striping, as shown in the photo to the
left, is recommended for use in future
installations.

Level 1 $6/Ft
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
22 TABLE 4:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
7-2. Advanced Yield Line
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Advanced yield lines, often referred to
as “sharks teeth”, should be striped at
all marked, uncontrolled crosswalks on
multi-lane roadways. They should be
placed 20-30 feet in front of the
crosswalk. Their intention is to identify
where vehicles should stop when
yielding to a pedestrian to maintain
adequate sight lines.

Level 1 $100/EA
7-3. Advanced Warning Signs
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
High-visibility yellow or fluorescentyellow-green (FYG) signs are posted at crossings to increase the visibility of a
pedestrian crossing.

Level 1 $1,000/EA
7-4. In-Street Pedestrian Crossing
Sign
Image Source: FHWA
This measure involves posting
regulatory pedestrian signage on lane
edge lines and/or road centerlines. The
in-street pedestrian crossing sign may
be used to remind road users of laws
regarding right-of-way at an
uncontrolled pedestrian crossing. They
can be installed on medians and may
also be temporary signs, placed by
school crossing guards during school
hours.

Level 1 $400/EA
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
23 TABLE 5:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: BEACON, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAL TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
8-1. Pedestrian-Scale Lighting
Image source: www.ci.mil.wi.us
Pedestrian-scale lighting improves
visibility along a pedestrian’s path and
across driveways. It also improves
visibility at pedestrian/vehicle conflict
points in crosswalks.

Level 1 $10,000/EA9
8-2. Flashing Beacon
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Flashing amber lights are installed on
overhead or post-mounted signs, in
advance of the crosswalk or at the
crosswalk’s entrance. Full-time flashing
beacons are not recommended; flashing
beacons are most effective when they
are activated by the crosswalk user
(they should rest on dark). By resting on
dark, they can also be solar powered.

Level 2 $50,000/EA

9 Cost assumes light every 100 feet
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
24 TABLE 5:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: BEACON, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAL TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
8-3. Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
The RRFB is an enhancement of the
flashing beacon that replaced the
traditional slow flashing incandescent
lamps with rapid flashing LED lamps.

The RRFB may be push-button activated
or activated with passive detection. This
treatment was approved for use in
California via Interim Approval IA-11-83
in 2011. Any installations should be
reported to Caltrans for documentation,
but do not require pre-approval for
experimentation.

Level 2 $25,000/EA
8-4. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
(PHB)
Image Source: FHWA
The PHB is a pedestrian-activated
beacon that is a combination of a
beacon flasher and a traffic control
signal. When actuated, the PHB displays
a yellow (warning) indication followed
by a solid red indication. During the
pedestrian clearance interval, the driver
sees a flashing red “wig-wag” pattern
until the clearance interval has ended
and the beacon goes dark. The device is
included in the 2012 California MUTCD
for use at midblock locations.10
Level 3 $50,000/EA
8-5. Pedestrian Signal
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
A pedestrian signal is a conventional
traffic control device with warrants for
use based on the MUTCD. The
pedestrian warrants were revised with
the 2009 Federal and 2012 California
MUTCD.

Level 4 $100,000/EA
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.

10 Use of the device at side-street stop control locations currently requires separate permission from the CTCDC (though this is under review).

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
25 5. CONTROLLED CROSSWALK TREATMENT TOOLBOX
Controlled crosswalks are located at stop-controlled or signalized intersections. Generally, these crossings do not need enhancements beyond standard crosswalk markings (two parallel lines), as the traffic signal or stop-sign controls allocation of right-of-way. However, in some cases, such as in the Downtown, at skewed intersections, or near schools, the City may consider providing enhanced crossings to create a sense of place or improved aesthetics, or to improve visibility. This chapter presents preferred and enhanced measures for pedestrian treatments at controlled locations to:
 Improve the visibility of pedestrians to motorists and vice-versa  Communicate to motorists and pedestrians who has the right-of-way  Accommodate vulnerable populations such as the disabled, children, and the elderly  Reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles
 Reduce vehicular speeds at locations with potential pedestrian conflicts All treatments identified in this chapter are required or allowed by the standards and specifications in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).

PREFERRED CROSSING TREATMENTS
Preferred crossing treatments are identified as the basic pedestrian crossing improvements to be provided at all stop-controlled and signalized intersections. New controlled intersections should be designed with these treatments included; existing controlled intersections that require retrofits may be prioritized and upgraded as City funds become available. These treatments are based on recommended best practices in pedestrian safety:
11  Mark crosswalks on all legs of the intersection that serve a key desire line  Provide advanced stop bars in advance of each crosswalk  Minimize the number of vehicle traffic lanes pedestrians must cross  Provide median refuge islands and thumbnails, as width and path of turn maneuvers allow  Remove sight-distance obstructions
 Provide directional curb ramps for each crosswalk (e.g., two per corner) The Standard Drawings for the City of Sacramento include best practices for directional curb ramp design (see drawing T-

11 See America Walks Signalized Intersection Enhancements that Benefit Pedestrians http://americawalks.org/wpcontent/upload/America-Walks-Signalized-Intersection-Enhancement-Report-Updated-8.16.2012.pdf (2012).

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
26 77 in Transportation document at: http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/Utilities/Resources/Specsand-Drawings)  Eliminate free right-turn slip lanes, where feasible, and mitigate for pedestrian safety where they remain
 Locate bus stops on the far-side of the intersection (or in front of mid-block crossings)  Minimize cycle lengths
 Reduce prevalence or eliminate permitted signal phasing where pedestrian crossings exist  Provide pedestrian signal heads for all crossings at signalized intersections  Provide adequate pedestrian clearance intervals (crossing time) at signalized intersections Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
27 Source: Standard drawings for the City of Sacramento Department of Transportation, 2007 (http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/Utilities/Resources/Specs-and-Drawings) Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
28 ENHANCED CROSSING TREATMENTS
At high volume pedestrian crossing locations or other areas designated by the City as pedestrian zones, the City may provide additional crosswalk enhancements at controlled intersections. These treatments provide improve drivers’ awareness of pedestrians by slowing traffic through geometric changes, providing signal timing or phasing modifications, or enhancing striping or signing to improve visibility.

The following tables describe the preferred and optional enhanced pedestrian safety treatments that may be used at the City’s discretion for controlled locations:
 Table 6: Geometric Treatments
 Table 7: Striping and Signage
 Table 8: Signal Hardware and Operational Measures
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
29 TABLE 6:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Cost
9-1. Fewer Travel Lanes (“Road Diet”)
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Fewer travel lanes decrease roadway
width and crosswalk length, reduce
speeds, reduce left-turn and rear-end
collisions, and often eliminate the
multiple-threat collision. An average
pedestrian takes almost four seconds to
cross each additional travel lane.

Therefore, reducing the number of
travel lanes minimizes the amount of
time that pedestrians are in the
crosswalk. More travel lanes than
necessary can also increase vehicle
travel speeds; research has shown that
the severity of pedestrian collisions
increases with vehicle travel speed.

Where fewer travel lanes are not
possible, travel lanes can be narrowed
to as little as nine feet, especially leftand right-turn pockets.

Preferred $20/LF12
9-2. Pedestrian Refuge Island with
“Thumbnail”
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Median pedestrian islands provide a
refuge for pedestrians to stand if they
do not have sufficient time to cross a
street. They can be enhanced with
median pedestrian push buttons at
signalized crossings. Median islands
can be installed throughout a corridor
or only at specific crosswalks.

Preferred $130/LF13

12 Cost includes removal of existing pavement markings and repainting. Assumes existing curbs are to remain as is. 13 Cost assumes 6 foot median and includes new curb and concrete barrier.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
30 TABLE 6:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Cost
9-3. Removal of Sight-Distance
Obstructions
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
If objects impede sight-distance, an
unsafe condition may arise where
motorists and pedestrians are unable to
see each other. Items such as parked
cards, signage, landscaping, fencing,
and street furniture should be placed in
a location that will not obstruct sightdistance.

Preferred $150/EA14
9-4. Directional Curb Ramps with
Truncated Domes
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Curb ramps offer wheelchair access
to/from the sidewalk and crosswalk.

Truncated domes, or tactile strips, warn
blind pedestrians that they are about to
enter a crosswalk. The best practice for
curb ramps is to install two per corner
so that each ramp points directly into
the crosswalk and to the curb ramp at
the other side of the street. Corner
bulbouts can be used to increase the
amount of space available for
directional curb ramps.

Preferred $4,000/ea

14 Item removed is anticipated to be no larger than a sign and post Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
31 TABLE 6:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Cost
9-5. Right-Turn Lane Design
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Free right-turns allow vehicles to turn
right at high speeds. Since the vehicles
are not typically controlled by the traffic
signal in this circumstance, crosswalks
across the turn lanes are usually
uncontrolled crosswalks. Controlled
right-turn movements are preferable for
pedestrians because they require a
vehicle to stop on red before turning
right. Where “pork-chop” islands that
channelize right-turns are necessary to
provide acceptable turning radii, raised
crosswalks are a pedestrian
enhancement. Other options include
signalizing the crossing (especially if it is
multi-lane) and designing the “porkchop” for slower speeds and better visibility of pedestrians.

Preferred $25,000/EA15

15 Cost to remove assuming no electrical costs
Source: FHWA
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
32 TABLE 6:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Cost
9-6. Far-Side Bus Stops
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Far-side bus stops allow pedestrians to
cross behind the bus, improving
pedestrian visibility. Far side bus stops
also enhance transit operations by
providing a guaranteed merging
opportunity for buses. Exceptions for
far-side bus stops include
considerations for bus routing,
sufficient sidewalk area, and conflicts
with parking, land uses, or driveways.

Preferred $1,000/EA16
9-7. Curb Extensions
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Curb extensions extend the curb and
sidewalks farther into the roadway,
shortening the length of the crosswalk.

They act as a traffic calming device by
narrowing the effective width of the
roadway and slowing turning speeds.

Because they extend into the roadway,
often past parallel-parked vehicles, they
improve visibility for pedestrians. The
also provide space for street furniture,
landscaping, bicycle parking, and signs
and signal poles. Curb extensions can
be constructed to accommodate ADA
improvements, such as directional curb
ramps.

Enhanced $140/LF17

16 Cost assumes no sidewalk or paving work
17 Cost includes removal of existing curb, new bollards, curb, and sidewalk. Cost does not include curb ramps.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
33 TABLE 6:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Cost
9-8. Reduced Turn Radius
Image Source: AARP
Vehicles travel faster through turns with
a large radius. Reducing the radius of a
corner is an effective way of reducing
vehicle speeds. In suburban
environments, turn radii generally do
not need to exceed 30 feet. In urban
environments turn radii can be 10 feet
or less, especially where the meeting of
one-way streets prohibits turning
movements. Where on-street parking is
permitted and/or bicycle lanes are
present on one or both streets,
consideration for further reductions of
radii should occur acknowledging that
the effective radius is increased with onstreet parking. Corner curb radii on multi-lane streets should acknowledge
that trucks turning right can turn into
two lanes.

Enhanced $175/LF18
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013

18 Cost includes removal of existing curb, new bollards, curb, and sidewalk. Cost does not include curb ramps.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
34 TABLE 7:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Cost
10-1. Marked Crosswalks
Image Source: Google Maps
Marking a crosswalk across all
approaches of an intersection
improves pedestrian accessibility.

At a four-way intersection, a closed
crosswalk forces pedestrians to
cross via three crosswalks instead of
one. Crosswalks on all approaches
can often be accommodated
without a significant impact to
traffic signal operations.

Preferred $15/LF19
10-2. Advanced Stop Bar
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Advanced stop bars are placed five
to seven feet in front of crosswalks.

They keep vehicles from
encroaching into the crosswalk
when stopped at a red signal or
stop sign.

Preferred $7.50/LF

19 Cost includes both lines of crossing.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
35 TABLE 7:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Cost
10-3. High Visibility Markings
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
High-visibility crosswalks at
controlled locations are appropriate
in areas with high pedestrian
volumes, at crosswalks with skewed
geometries, or near sensitive land
uses (such as schools).

Enhanced $6/Ft
10-4. Textured Pavement or Colored
Crosswalks
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Textured pavement can be used in
crosswalks or in intersections as an
aesthetic enhancement. Because of
its texture, it may also calm traffic
by slowing vehicles before they
cross an intersection. It can also
make crosswalks more visible.

Textured pavement can be made of
brick or, alternatively, both concrete
and asphalt can be stamped to look
like brick or stone. At controlled
locations, standard crosswalk
striping should be provided in
addition to the textured pavement.

A smooth, non-slip surface is
preferable.

Enhanced $15/SF
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
36 TABLE 8:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level Cost
11-1. Adequate Crossing Times
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
The 2012 California MUTCD requires a
walking speed of 3.5 feet per second be
assumed to determine crossing times as
a default minimum (4.0 feet per second
was previously the guidance). A speed
slower than 3.5 feet per second can be
used where slower pedestrians routinely
use the crosswalk, such as locations
near schools, hospitals, or senior
centers.

Preferred N/A20
11-2. Pedestrian Countdown Signal
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Pedestrian countdown signals give
pedestrians “Walk” and “Don’t Walk”
signals with a second-by-second
countdown for each phase. Research
suggests that pedestrians are more
likely to obey the “Don’t Walk” signal
when delivered using a countdown
signal. The device has been shown to
enhance safety for all road users. The
2012 California MUTCD requires that all
new pedestrian signals be countdown
signals.

Preferred $500/EA

20 No construction costs associated with measure. Only preparation and implementation costs Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
37 TABLE 8:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level Cost
11-3. Pedestrian Signals and Push
Buttons
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Mounting push buttons for different
crosswalks on one pole can be
confusing for blind pedestrians. Push
buttons should be separated by ten feet
and placed within five feet of each curb
ramp, one per crosswalk. At long
crosswalks (≥60 feet) with a median
refuge island, push buttons can be
placed in the median for pedestrians
who may not be able to cross the entire
crosswalk in one cycle length. In areas
with high pedestrian volumes,
eliminating pedestrian push buttons
and providing a pedestrian phase in
every cycle, can enhance walkability
(and signal compliance).

Preferred $1,000/EA21
11-4. Short Cycle Lengths
Image Source: Institute of Transportation
Engineers
Long cycle lengths at signalized
intersections result in long pedestrian
wait times to cross a street. By
shortening an intersection’s cycle
length, pedestrians do not have to wait
as long to cross after pushing the
button to request a “Walk” signal.

Preferred N/A22

21 Cost includes pole
22 No construction costs associated with measure. Only preparation and implementation costs Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
38 TABLE 8:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level Cost
11-5. Protected Left-Turns
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Where permitted left-turns are allowed,
denoted by a “Left Turn Yield on Green”
sign, left-turning vehicles can conflict
with pedestrians in the crosswalk. By
making the left-turn protected, so that
it is allowed only with a green arrow,
the “Walk” signal at a crosswalk occurs
at the same time that through- and
right-turning vehicles in the same
direction receive a green light. This
reduces the risk of left-turning vehicle
conflicts with the opposing crosswalk;
since left-turns typically occur at a
higher speed than right-turns, collisions
of increased severity can be avoided by
protecting left-turns.

Preferred $20,000-
50,000/EA23
11-6. Accessible Pedestrian Signals
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Accessible pedestrian signals (APS) and
detectors provide information, such as
“Walk” indications and direction of
crossing, in non-visual formats to
improve accessibility for blind
pedestrians. Audible options for
accessible pedestrian signals include
audible tones and speech messages.

Vibrotactile push-buttons are effective
options that alleviate the impacts of
noise created by audible pedestrian
signals. They are also accessible to deaf
pedestrians. APS should always be
provided when two push buttons are
located on one pole and where persons
with disabilities are expected frequently
at a crossing. At other locations, APS is
currently a best practice, but is expected
to become a requirement when the
proposed rulemaking of the Public
Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines
(PROWAG) is finalized.

Enhanced $2,500/EA

23 Assumes left turn lane is existing, so no roadway work is necessary. Only signal work.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
39 TABLE 8:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level Cost
Source: FHWA
11-7. Pedestrian Recall
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Pedestrian recall gives pedestrians a
“Walk” signal at every cycle. No pushbutton or detection is necessary since a “Walk” signal will always be given.

Pedestrian recalls are useful in areas
with high levels of pedestrian activity.

They demonstrate that an intersection is
meant to serve both vehicles and
pedestrians. In general, pedestrian
recall should be used if pedestrians
actuate a “Walk” signal 75 percent of
the time during three or more hours per
day. Recall can be used 24-hours a day
or during peak hours for pedestrians (in
which case push buttons should
continue to be provided).

Enhanced N/A24

24 No construction costs associated with measure. Only preparation and implementation costs Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
40 TABLE 8:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level Cost
11-8. No Right Turn on Red
Image Source: FHWA
When attempting to turn right on red,
motorists must look left to see if the
road is clear; motorists often do not
look right before turning and may not
see pedestrians to their right.

Restricting right turns on red can
reduce conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians. “Blank out” turn restriction
signs (see 11-9 below) are more
effective than conventional “No Right
Turn on Red” signs. “No Right Turn on
Red” signs that specify time-of-day
restrictions or “When Pedestrians are
Present” are confusing to motorists and
are often disregarded.

Enhanced $1,500/EA25
11-9. Blank-Out Turn Restriction
LED Sign
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
The ubiquity of conventional turn
restriction signs, usually for no right
turn on red, contributes to their
disregard by motorists. Blank out turn
restriction signs activate only when the
specified movement is prohibited. The
LED sign is also very visible.

Enhanced $2,00026

25 Cost includes 2 signs: one on mast arm and other on pole nearby 26 Cost includes installation
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
41 TABLE 8:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level Cost
11-10. Animated Eyes
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Animated eyes pedestrian signals
feature eyes that move from side to
side when a “Walk” signal is given. The
signals remind pedestrians to look for
turning vehicles before proceeding into
the crosswalk. Research has indicated
that animated eyes pedestrian signals
reduce conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians. Source: http://www.cerssafety.com/pedestriansignals.pdf Enhanced $2,00027
11-11. Leading Pedestrian Interval
(LPI)
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
A leading pedestrian interval (LPI)
advances the “Walk” signal for a few
seconds while through-vehicles
continue to receive a red indication. By
allowing pedestrians to get a head start
into the crosswalk, it can reduce
conflicts between pedestrians and
turning vehicles. The 2012 California
MUTCD recommends that LPIs be at
least three seconds in duration. Rightturn on red restrictions may be needed with LPIs are installed in locations with
lower pedestrian volumes.

Enhanced
No construction
costs only
preparation and
implementation
costs
11-12. Push Button for Extended
Crossing Time
Image Source: FHWA
Some pedestrians may need extra time
to safely cross a street. Traffic signals
can be retrofitted to provide
pedestrians with increased crossing
time by extending the duration of a
pushbutton press.

Enhanced $1,000/EA28
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.

27 Cost includes installation
28 Cost includes pole
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
42 6. CREATIVE CROSSWALK GUIDELINES
Creative crosswalks are a means to promote vibrant place making which can improve active pedestrian lifestyles in downtown districts and neighborhoods. If designed properly, creative crosswalks can also increase the attention of motorists and improve safety where pedestrians cross the street. These guidelines are intended to guide City staff to determine if a creative crosswalk is appropriate at a particular location and to provide guidance in regards to artwork placement, color, composition, and material.

These guidelines were developed to address where and under what conditions creative crosswalk treatments could be installed. When a specific location is being considered for a creative crosswalk- due to public request, a new development, or staff recommendation- this chapter serves as a guide to consistently and transparently determine the appropriate application. This chapter contains a background of relevant state and federal regulations and feedback of the creative crosswalk best practices. The best practices were chosen to cover common guidance principals, sighting, project styles and applied design requirements which were used to develop this Creative Crosswalk policy.

Creative Crosswalks Definition
Creative crosswalks are decorative paving treatments which include: colored and/or textured concrete, asphalt or pavers, Street Print, Duratherm, or other similar treatments. Creative crosswalks are a means to facilitate vibrant place making and to promote improved pedestrian facilities in downtown districts and neighborhoods. If designed correctly, creative crosswalks can also increase the attention of motorists in order to improve traffic calming where pedestrians will be crossing the street. Many cities have begun installing creative crosswalks, but because there are no specific standards established, each city has been creating their own guidelines and process for installation.

Creative crosswalk treatments should not be considered a safety or traffic control measure and are not a substitute for, and should not detract from, transverse, triple four or continental crosswalk markings.

Furthermore, creative crosswalk treatments are not a substitute for continental crosswalk or triple four markings.

Creative crosswalks consistency with The CA-MUTCD
One concern with creative crosswalks is whether they are compliant with the state and national traffic control standards as provided in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD).

The CA-MUTCD states in Section 3.G.01, paragraph 6:

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
43  Crosswalks should not be marked at intersections unless they are intended to channelize pedestrians.
 Crosswalk markings should be located so that the curb ramps are within the extension of the crosswalk markings.
 Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadway segments by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops.
 Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately.
 Colored pavement located between crosswalk lines should not use colors or patterns that degrade the contrast of white crosswalk lines or that might be mistaken by road users as a traffic control application.

These guidelines suggest that crosswalks must have white lines and the space in between those lines should not be filled with a distracting color or pattern.

FHWA Interpretation Letter 3(09)-24(I) – Application of Colored Pavement Treatment in Crosswalks was written by the Federal Highway Administration in response to multiple requests from municipal traffic departments across the country requesting an official interpretation of the MUTCD regarding proposed colored crosswalk designs. The FHWA letter states:

The FHWA's position has always been, and continues to be that subdued-colored aesthetic treatments between the legally marked transverse crosswalk lines are permissible provided that they are devoid of retroreflective properties and that they do not diminish the effectiveness of the legally required white transverse pavement markings used to establish the crosswalk.

Examples of acceptable treatments include brick lattice patterns, paving bricks, paving stones, setts, cobbles, or other resources designed to simulate such paving. Acceptable colors for these materials would be red, rust, brown, burgundy, clay, tan or similar earth tone equivalents. All elements of pattern and color for these treatments are to be uniform, consistent, repetitive, and expected so as not to be a source of distraction. No element of the aesthetic interior treatment is to be random or unsystematic. No element of the aesthetic interior treatment can implement pictographs, symbols, multiple color arrangements, etc., or can otherwise attempt to communicate with any roadway user.

Patterns or colors that degrade the contrast of the white transverse pavement markings establishing the crosswalk are to be avoided. Attempts to intensify this contrast by increasing or thickening the width of the transverse pavement markings have been observed in the field. These attempts to increase contrast are perceived to be efforts to circumvent the contrast prerequisite Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
44 so that an intentional noncompliant alternative of an aesthetic interior pattern or color can be used. Further techniques to install an empty buffer space between an aesthetic treatment and the interior edge of the white transverse crosswalk markings have also been observed in the field.

This strategy is also perceived to be an attempt to circumvent FHWA's prior position on contrast.

However, an empty buffer space between a subdued-colored, uniform-patterned aesthetic treatment can be implemented to enhance contrast between the aesthetic treatment and the white transverse pavement markings. When used properly, buffer spaces can be an effective tool to disseminate a necessary contrast in order to visually enhance an otherwise difficult to discern white transverse crosswalk marking, provided that the aesthetic treatment conforms to the conditions in the preceding paragraph.

In order to recognize the safety reasons for the MUTCD statement and the FHWA Interpretation Letter, but to not completely exclude creative crosswalks, it is recommended that only white paint be used for the transverse crosswalk lines. The application of white paint is recommended so that the transverse crosswalk markings remain clearly visible. Due to the narrow spacing between stripes of continental crosswalks and triple four crosswalks, it is recommended to avoid creative crosswalk treatments at all continental crosswalks and triple four crosswalks.

GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CREATIVE CROSSWALKS This section presents the guidelines for the design and implementation of creative crosswalks in the City of Salinas. These guidelines are based in part on the requirements of the CA-MUTCD as documented above and on the research and case studies referenced at the end of this memo. These guidelines document the desired practice and are subject to the engineering judgement of the City Traffic Engineer.

Location Requirements:
 Must be at a location where traffic is required to stop because of a stop sign or traffic signal.  Approved on local or collector streets where speeds do not exceed 35 mph. Arterial streets will be considered at the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer.  If the intersection pavement is in poor condition, materials will not bond; pavement must be in satisfactory condition in order to receive approval.
 The approval of the creative crosswalk will be at the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer Design Guidelines:
 Creative crosswalk treatments may be installed (1) within the transverse line crosswalks or (2) within the central portion of the intersection as indicated on Exhibit 1.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
45  Crosswalks shall contain two white transverse lines with reflectivity to be compliant with minimum crosswalk standards. All creative crosswalk treatments must be contained within the two transverse (horizontal) lines or within the interior portion of the intersection and should not overlap with or distract from visibility of the transverse crosswalk lines.  Transverse crosswalk lines shall be limited to white paint only, with the exception of school zones which require yellow transverse crosswalk lines.
 Creative crosswalk treatments located within the central portion of the intersection can be varied in color but bold yellow, red, blue, and green paint should be avoided as these colors may detract from visibility of the transverse or continental crosswalk markings.  All creative crosswalk treatments must contrast with the visibility of the crosswalk markings and must be devoid of reflective properties.
 Painting between the solid white vertical lines in a continental crosswalk is not allowed per federal guidelines. If installing at a location where a continental or triple four crosswalk already exists; striping must first be removed and converted to a transverse crosswalk.  No logos, text, or advertising shall be utilized in the creative crosswalk design.  The creative crosswalk treatments shall not contain octagons, triangles, other shapes, text, or logos that could be confused with a standard traffic control devices or legends.

Materials / Paint Type:
 A street-grade paint must be used and provide a non-slip surface for pedestrians, bicyclists, or those who use wheelchairs and other assistive mobility devices.  All artwork must utilize a non-reflective paint.
 Materials must be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer Maintenance and Implementation:
 Depending on materials used and the location, creative crosswalks typically last from three to six months when using street grade paint or three to five years when using thermo-plastic paint.  The City of Salinas will maintain crosswalk markings and other traffic control devices but assumes no responsibility for maintaining the artwork portions of the creative crosswalks.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
46  A maintenance plan that details the continued maintenance of the creative crosswalk markings including periodic paint touch-ups and/or removal if the crosswalks are temporary a temporary.

Touch up of the creative crosswalks markings should occur at least every six months.  A traffic control plan and street occupancy permit must be obtained prior to implementation and each time the creative crosswalk requires maintenance.

Figure 1 describes the overall procedures from the moment City staff receives a request for a new creative crosswalk to the installation of the treatment. As described, the first steps to determine the appropriate location and treatment for the creative crosswalk shall be evaluated according to the creative crosswalk guidelines provided above.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
47 INSERT EXHIBIT 1 HERE
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
48 if yes
if no
This may not be
an appropriate
location for a
creative crosswalk
and/or shall
require additional
consideration by
the City Engineer
City Review
 Is the location an existing controlled
crosswalk?
 Is the crosswalk currently marked with
transverse crosswalk striping?
 Is the location on a local or collector street
with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or less?
(Arterials to be considered at the discretion
of the City)
 Is the pavement in good condition?
City Staff receives a request to install a
creative crosswalk
Project applicant shall submit a draft concept
plan of the intersection showing full color
renderings of the proposed creative crosswalk
treatment with dimensions, paint materials, and
maintenance plan.

City Review of Draft Design
Creative Crosswalk Approved and
Implemented
The project applicant shall refine the plan as
determined by City staff and work with the City to
develop a traffic control plan and implementation
schedule
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
49 7. EDUCATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND ENCOURAGEMENT

PROGRAMS
The prior chapters in this policy describe engineering treatments to improve pedestrian safety and enhance walkability. Engineering, however, is only one aspect of a comprehensive pedestrian safety strategy.

Education, enforcement, and encouragement, are also crucial, as outlined in the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan. This section presents best practices for education, encouragement, and enforcement components of pedestrian safety programs that may be considered to supplement the Crosswalk Policy Guidelines.

EDUCATION
The following is a list of pedestrian safety practices for educating pedestrians and motorists about safe and lawful behavior:
 Website – provide informational materials relating to pedestrian safety  Videos – post information such as public service announcements to the City’s website  Community outreach events – provide opportunities for pedestrian education such as Mayor’s night out events
 Pamphlets – make informational materials available through the City  Student group involvement – promote pedestrian safety by involving and educating student groups
 Street/Bus Stop/School Banners – place advertisements in high activity pedestrian areas  Yard Signs – communicate roadway conditions to motorists and pedestrians  Strategic partnerships – partner with groups such as American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) to promote pedestrian safety
 Local media campaigns – involve local media in pedestrian safety campaigns  Classroom curricula – collaborate with local school districts to develop pedestrian safety curricula for schools
 Structured skills practice – develop a program that trains pedestrians in safe behavior  Games, coloring books, etc. – develop or provide fun and educational materials for children

ENFORCEMENT
The following is a list of pedestrian safety practices for enforcing pedestrian and vehicular right-of-way laws:

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
50  Officer training courses – provides law enforcement with full understanding of pedestrian laws and safety practices
 Traffic complaint hotline – provides a method for citizens to alert the City when a public facility is of concern, such as inoperable traffic signal
 Community enforcement – provides a mechanism for community members to help enforce traffic laws, such as a radar gun checkout program
 Adult school crossing guards – provides a trained adult to help pedestrians cross the street  Pedestrian decoys – target enforcement activities with a staged pedestrian or motorist, targeting motorists or pedestrians who do not comply with traffic laws  Partnership with media, stakeholders, and City departments – involve various stakeholders in pedestrian education campaigns and efforts

ENCOURAGEMENT
The following is a list of pedestrian safety practices that encourage pedestrians and motorists to engage in safe and lawful behavior:
 Wayfinding – install signage directing pedestrians to designated routes and destinations  Walking school buses/Walking Wednesdays –organize activities by schools and/or parents that have students walk to school in groups on selected days  Community walking audits – lead or support community members on walk around an area noting positive practices and areas for improvement
 Silver sneaker awards – distribute awards encouraging physical activity among seniors  Incentives/contests – reward those who walk or demonstrate safe walking habits  Peer-to-peer education – develop program to educate pedestrians through interaction with peers trained in pedestrian safety
51 APPENDIX A:

CITYWIDE CROSSWALK INVENTORY
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
52 APPENDIX B:

PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
53 The pedestrian delay calculations included in the Crosswalk Tool rely on the methodology recommended in NCRHP Report 562 (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf). A full discussion of this methodology is found in Appendix A of the NCHRP report. The key equations in the tool include:

TABLE 9:

PEDESTRIAN LOS CALCULATIONS
Road Characteristics Description
Speed on the major street (mph) Use the major road posted or statutory speed limit for the facilities or, if available, the 85th percentile speed.

Pedestrian crossing distance
(ft)
Pedestrian crossing distance represents the distance that a pedestrian would need to cross before reaching either the far curb or a median refuge island. The distance would be between the near and far curbs if a painted or raised median refuge island is not present, or to the median refuge island if the island is present.

Note if a parking stall is present, its width should be included in the crossing distance measurement. Crossing distance rather than number of lanes was selected for the procedure so that the extra time needed by a pedestrian to cross bike lanes, two-way left-turn lanes, wide lanes, etc. could be considered.

Counts Description
Peak-hour pedestrian volume
crossing major roadway (ped/h)
Pedestrian volume is the number of pedestrians crossing the major roadway in a peak hour. The count includes all pedestrian crossings of the major roadway at the location.

Major road peak hour vehicle
volume (veh/h)
Vehicle volume represents the number of vehicles and bicycles on both approaches of the major road during a peak hour. If a painted or raised median refuge island is present of sufficient size to store pedestrians (minimum of 6 ft [1.8 m] wide), then consider the volume on each approach individually. In the signal warrant calculations, use the volume on both approaches (Vmaj-s). For the delay calculations, the volume (Vmaj-d) would reflect either both approaches if a refuge island is not present or each approach individually if a refuge island is present.

Local Parameters Description
Motorist compliance for region
(high or low)
Compliance reflects the typical behavior of motorists for the site. If motorists tend to stop for a pedestrian attempting to cross at an uncontrolled location, then compliance is “high.” If motorists rarely stop for a crossing pedestrian, then compliance is “low.”
Pedestrian walking speed (ft/s)
Walking speed represents the speed of the crossing pedestrians. Recent research has suggested walking speeds of 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s) for the general population and

3.0 ft/s (0.9 m/s) for the older population. If calculating for a site, determine the 15th percentile value of those using the crossing.

Pedestrian start-up time and
end clearance time (s)
Start-up time is used in the calculation of the critical gap. A value of 3 s is suggested in the Highway Capacity Manual.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
54 TABLE 9:

PEDESTRIAN LOS CALCULATIONS
Calculations Description
Signal warrant check (ped/hr)
Regression equations were determined for the plots shown in the 2012 CA MUTCD Figures 4C-7 and 4C-8. These equations can calculate the minimum number of pedestrians crossing the major road needed to meet the signal warrant based on the major road volume. The recommendation made in 2006 to the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is that the vehicles signal warrants values for crossing two lanes be used as the pedestrian signal warrant values. Both the peak vehicle hour and the peak pedestrian hour may need to be checked.

HAWK warrant check
Regression equations were determined for the plots shown in the 2012 CA MUTCD Figures 4F-1 and 4F-2. These equations can calculate the minimum number of pedestrians crossing the major road needed to meet the HAWK signal warrant based on the major road volume.

Critical gap (s), tc
Critical gap is the time in seconds below which a pedestrian will not attempt to begin crossing the street. For a single pedestrian, critical gap (tc) can be computed using Equation 18-17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The equation includes consideration of the pedestrian walking speed (Sp), crossing distance (L), and start-up and end clearance times (ts). tc = (L/Sp) + ts Major road flow rate (veh/s), v
Flow rate is a measure of the number of vehicles per second (v). For high-speed conditions, the number of vehicles is adjusted by dividing by 0.7. Flow rate is determined by: Low speed: v = Vmaj-p/3600 high speed: v = (Vmaj-p/0.7)/3600 It is based on the major road volume (Vmaj-d), which is the total of both approaches (or the approach being crossed if median refuge island is present) during the peak hour (veh/h).

Average pedestrian delay
(s/person), dp
The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual includes Equation 18-21 that can be used to determine the average delay per pedestrian at an unsignalized intersection crossing (s/person). dp = (1/v)*(EXP(v*tc)-(v*tc-1)). It depends upon critical gap (tc), the vehicular flow rate of the crossing (v), and the mean vehicle headway.

Total pedestrian delay (ped-h)
Total pedestrian delay (Dp) uses the average pedestrian delay (dp) and multiplies that value by the number of pedestrians (Vp) to determine the total pedestrian delay for the approach. Dp = (dp × Vp)/3,600
Source: NCHRP Report 562, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
55 APPENDIX C:

PEDESTRIAN COLLISION ANALYSIS
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
56 PEDESTRIAN COLLISION ANALYSIS
Vehicle-pedestrian collision data is one source of information to identify pedestrian safety “hotspots”.

Collision data was obtained from the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for the City of Salinas between January 2005 and December 2010, the five (5) most recent years of available data at the time this report was authored.

The locations of pedestrian collisions were mapped to illustrate the pedestrian-vehicle collisions throughout Salinas. A total of 363 vehicle-pedestrian collisions occurred in Salinas between 2005 and 2010. Figure 4 shows the number and location of collisions at intersections throughout Salinas from 2005-2010. Table 10 lists the locations with the highest number of vehicle-pedestrian collisions Citywide. As shown, the intersection of N. Sanborn Road and Garner Avenue has the most frequent pedestrian collisions, with 14 occurring between 2005 and 2010.29
TABLE 10:

TOP PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE COLLISION LOCATIONS, SALINAS, 2005-2010 Intersection Number of
Collisions Intersection Number of Collisions
N. Sanborn Road and Garner Avenue 14 Lincoln Avenue and Central Avenue 4 Salinas Street and W. Alisal Street 7 Geil Street and S. Main Street 4 N. Main Street and E. Laurel Drive 6 N. Main Street and Lamar Street 4 Williams Road and Bardin Road 5 Alisal Street and Wood Street 4 Harden Parkway and N. Main Street 5 E. Alisal Street and N. Madeira Avenue 4 E. Alisal Street and Sanborn Street 5 E. Market Street and Carr Avenue 4 E. Bernal Drive and N. Main Street 4 N. Sanborn Road and Freedom Parkway 4 Source: SWITRS, 2005-2010.Fehr & Peers, 2013.

Notes: This list is based on number of collisions and does not adjust for vehicle or pedestrian volumes (exposure).

Collisions occurring 25 feet or closer to an intersection were assigned to the nearest intersection.

29 The City recently received a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant to provide intersection safety improvements along the Sanborn Road Corridor that includes pedestrian benefits. (countdown signals/eliminates permitted left turns).

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
57 Figure 4: Salinas Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions, 2005-2010 Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
58 Figure 5 shows the higher severity pedestrian-vehicle collisions, including those with pedestrian injuries and fatalities, and Table 11 lists the locations with the highest number of fatalities and injuries. Similar to Table 1, N. Sanborn Road and Garner Avenue has the highest frequency of pedestrian-vehicle collisions, with 14 injuries and two fatalities occurring between 2005 and 2010.

TABLE 11:

TOP PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE COLLISIONS LOCATIONS, INJURY OR FATALITY, 2005-2010 Intersection Number of Injuries
(Fatalities) Intersection Number of Injuries (Fatalities) N. Sanborn Road and Garner
Avenue 14 (2) E. Alisal Street and N. Pearl Street 4 (0) N. Main Street and E. Laurel
Drive 7 (0) Freedom Parkway and N. Sanborn Road 4 (0)
Salinas Street and W. Alisal
Street 7 (0) E. Laurel Drive and Towt Street 4 (0)
E. Alisal Street and N. Sanborn
Road 6 (0) W. Alisal Street and Lincoln Avenue 4 (0)
Williams Road and Bardin
Road 6 (0) S. Main Street and Geil Street 4 (0)
Harden Parkway and N. Main
Street 5 (0) N. Main Street and Lamar Street 4 (0)
Alisal Street and Wood Street 4 (0) N. Main Street and Bernal Drive 4 (1)
E. Alisal Street and N. Madeira
Avenue 4 (0) E. Alvin Drive and McKinnon Street 4 (0)
Source: SWITRS, 2005-2010.Fehr & Peers, 2013.

Notes: This list is based on number of collisions and does not adjust for vehicle or pedestrian volumes (exposure).

Collisions occurring 25 feet or closer to an intersection were assigned to the nearest intersection.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
59 Figure 5: Salinas Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions Resulting in Injuries and/or Fatalities, 2005-2010 Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
60 Primary Collision Factor
Table 12 lists the most common primary collisions factors (PCFs) for pedestrian-vehicle collisions in Salinas.

The top three PCFs were pedestrian right-of-way violation (wherein the motorist is at fault), pedestrian violation (wherein the pedestrian is at fault), and unsafe speed (wherein the vehicle’s speed is the primary cause of the collision). In total, motorists are at fault for over 50 percent of pedestrian collisions. Pedestrian violations account for approximately one-third of collision factors.

TABLE 12:

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS (PCFS) FOR PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE COLLISIONS IN SALINAS, 2005-2010
Primary Collision Factor % of Total
Pedestrian Right-of-Way 36.4%
Pedestrian Violation 34.4%
Not Stated 5.2%
Unsafe Speed 4.4%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 3.0%
Traffic Signals and Signs 2.8%
Unknown 2.8%
Improper Turning 2.5%
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 2.2% Automobile Right-of-Way 1.7%
Improper Passing 1.1%
Other Improper Driving 1.1%
Wrong Side of Road 0.8%
Other Hazardous Violation 0.8%
Unsafe Lane Change 0.6%
Source: SWITRS 2005-2010, Fehr & Peers, 2013
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
61 Day of the Week
The following statistics and charts show the number of pedestrian collisions that occur by day of the week and hour of the day. Between 2005 and 2010, collisions occurred most frequently on Fridays and Saturdays, with 72 and 57 collisions, respectively. Monday had the third highest number of pedestrian collisions (55).

Pedestrian collisions occur in a pattern similar to typical morning and evening commute peak hours:
between 2005 and 2010, 32 pedestrian collisions occurred in the 8:00 am hour, and 41 collisions in the 6:00 pm hour.
47 55
40 42
50 72
57 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Source: SWITRS, 2005 - 2010
Chart 1: Pedestrian Collisions by Day of Week
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
62 Weather
Conditions
Chart 3 displays the weather conditions during pedestrian collisions in Salinas. The majority of pedestrian collisions took place when the weather was clear, which indicates that in 80% of collisions, weather was likely not a factor in condition of the roadway; however, sun glare may have contributed to some of these collisions. The weather was cloudy in 34 of the collisions and raining in 21. Wind was noted in one (1) collision, “Other” in one (1) collision, and in three (3) reports weather was not reported. 303
34 21 3 1 1
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Clear Cloudy Raining Not Stated Wind Other
Source: SWITRS, 2005 - 2010
Chart 3: Pedestrian Collisions by Weather
32 20
33 41
15 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 12:00 AM
1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM 10:00 AM11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM 10:00 PM11:00 PM
12:00 AM
Source: SWITRS, 2005 - 2010
Chart 2: Pedestrian Collisions by Hour
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
63 Age Statistics
TABLE 13:

AGE RANGES FOR PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE COLLISIONS IN SALINAS, 2005-2010 Age Range % of Total
0-15 28%
16-30 29%
31-45 18%
46-60 17%
61+ 9%
Source: SWITRS 2005-2010, Fehr & Peers, 2013
Table 13 provides a summary of pedestrian age data for collisions in Salinas. The ages are grouped in five categories: ages 0-15, ages 15-30, ages 31-45, ages 46-60, and ages 61 and above. The greatest proportion of collisions involved the age group 16-30, which accounted for 29 percent of the collisions, followed closely by the age group 0-15, which accounted for 28 percent of pedestrian collisions. Together, pedestrians under 30 years of age account for over half of the pedestrians involved in collisions.

Near Schools
The frequency of pedestrian-vehicle collisions was also reviewed for school-age children (five years old through 18 years old) within ¼-mile of schools. Figure 6 shows the locations of these pedestrian-vehicle collisions. In total, 33 collisions occurred that meet these criteria, or approximately 10 percent of the total pedestrian-vehicle collisions occurring Citywide.

SUMMARY
While walking accounts for only a small percentage of trips,30 according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), pedestrian fatalities represented 13 percent of total fatalities in traffic crashes in 2010 (“Traffic Safety Facts: 2010 Data,” 2012). This implies that pedestrians are over represented in collisions compared to the number of trips made by walking. Pedestrian collisions are also known to be

30 According to the 2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, the walking mode for work trips in the United States is 2.8 percent.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
64 underreported, since those collisions with no injury or fatality often go without a police report and are, thus, not added to the City or SWITRS databases for analysis.

Collision data for the City of Salinas was obtained from the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) between January 2005 and December 2010, the five (5) most recent years of available data at the time this report was authored. Based on this data, 363 vehicle-pedestrian collisions occurred in Salinas between 2005 and 2010. The most common primary collision factors included pedestrian right-of-way violation (wherein the vehicle is at fault), pedestrian violation (wherein the pedestrian is at fault), and unsafe speed (wherein the vehicle’s speed is the primary cause of the collision). Weekends (Fridays through Sundays) had higher collision frequency, on average, than weekdays; however, collision frequency tended to follow peak vehicle commute times – 8:00 am, 4:00 pm, and 6:00 pm have the highest number of pedestrian collisions.

Age is also an important variable in understanding collision frequency, as 57 percent of pedestrian collisions involved pedestrians under the age of 30. This indicates that safe routes to school education, enforcement, and engineering efforts should be a priority for the City.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
65 Figure 6: Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions for School-Age Children Occurring within ¼-Mile of Schools PEDESTRIAN THROUGH ZONE 13' 21' 8' 21' 13' 8' 8' PASSENGER LANDING PAD PROPOSED ADA RAMPS PROPOSED ADA RAMP PROPOSED ADA RAMP PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER EXTENSION (TYP) MST BUS STOP SIGN MST BUS STOP SIGN BUS STOP AREA LENGTH (13'X45') BUS STOP AREA LENGTH (13'X45') PROPOSED STOP PROPOSED STOP

RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPOSED TRIPLE 4

CROSSWALK (TYP)

ACOSTA PLAZA
PACIFIC AVENUE GARNER AVENUE PEDESTRIAN THROUGH ZONE 8' CONCEPTUAL DESIGN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 20' 40' SCALE: 1"=20' DESIGNED BY: CAD BY: PROJECT ENGINEER / MANAGER: CITY OF SALINAS CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SUPERVISOR: S A L I NA SC A L I F OR NI A DATE REVISION APP. PROJ. NO(S) SHEET NO. FILE NO. OF File Path: I:\PWTra\Construction Projects\Garner Ave at Pacific Ave-Acosta Plaza\Intersection Modifications Concept Exhibit.dwg Plot By: ANDREW EASTERLING
Plot Date: 8/3/2022 4:59 PM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION: REVIEWED BY: DATE TRAFFIC TBD STATE OF CALIFORNIA REGISTEREDPROFES IONALENGINEERNO. #### REGISTEREDPROFES IONALENGINEER STATE OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL NO. ##### TBD GERARDO RODRIGUEZ GERARDO RODRIGUEZ TBD TBD GARNER AVE AT PACIFIC AVE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS CONCEPTUAL DRAWING #### ### #### ### DESIGNED BY: CAD BY: PROJECT ENGINEER / MANAGER: CITY OF SALINAS CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SUPERVISOR: S A L I NA SC A L I F O R NI A DATE REVISION APP. PROJ. NO(S) SHEET NO. FILE NO. OF File Path: I:\PWTra\Construction Projects\On-Call for Traffic Control Devices\Restriping\2022\Dwgs\Garner Ave at Pacific Ave-Acosta Plz_rev1.dwg Plot By: ANDREW EASTERLING
Plot Date: 8/3/2022 4:44 PM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION: REVIEWED BY: DATE TRAFFIC ANDREWEASTERLING STATE OF CALIFORNIA REGISTEREDPROFES IONALENGINEERNO. 2824 REGISTEREDPROFES IONALENGINEER STATE OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL NO. 69142 ANDREW EASTERLING, P.E., T.E. TRAFFIC ENGINEER ADRIANAROBLES ADRIANA ROBLES, P.E. CITY ENGINEER ANDREW EASTERLING JONATHAN HERNANDEZ TBD ANDREW EASTERLING RESTRIPING - JOC 6 GARNER AVE AT PACIFIC AVE/ACOSTA PLZ #### ## SHEET NOTES LEGEND SHEET TOTAL S A L I NA SC A L I F OR NI A N SIGN CHART STOP GARNER AVE

PACIFIC AVE

ACOSTA PLAZA ALL WAY
Stop Warrant Analysis: Garner Ave and Pacific Ave
Date: 7/26/22Performed by: Gerardo Rodriquez
Checked by: Andrew Easterling
City of Salinas
AWSC
Major
Approach 8‐
hour
average
Major
Approach
(<40 mph)
8‐hour
average
AWSC
Warrant
Minor
Approach 8‐
hour
average
Minor
Approach
(<40 mph)
8‐hour
average
AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
12‐month
period
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
12‐month
period
AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
80%
Condition
Met?
Garner Ave and Pacific Ave 1227 300 163 200 No 05 No No TWSC
Major
Approach
ADT
Major
Approach

ADT AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
12‐month
period
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
12‐month
period
AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
24‐month
period
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
24‐month
period
AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
Section
2B.06 02B:

A restricted
view
Section
2B.06 02B:

A restricted
view
Condition
Met?
Garner Ave and Pacific Ave 17169 6000 Yes
03 No
15 No TWSC exists

ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL WARRANT
MAJOR APPROACH 1227 8-HR AVERAGE MINOR APPROACH 163 8-HR AVERAGE *NOT INCLUDED, NOT AN APPROACH 679 GARNER AVE 163 ACOSTA PLZ PACIFIC AVE
548 66* TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL WARRANT
MAJOR APPROACH ADT 17169 S A L I NA SC A L I FOR NI A
N GARNER AVE AT PACIFIC AVE/ACOSTA PLZ AWSC AND TWSC WARRANT 0 100' 200' SCALE: 1"= 100' Collision Summary Report
City of Salinas
Police Department
6/20/22
From 1/1/2020 to 12/31/2021Total Collisions: 3Injury Collisions: 1Fatal Collisions: 0GARNER AVE & PACIFIC AVE Page 1 of 19122312 6/8/2020 15:15 Monday Rear‐End Parked Motor Vehicle
PACIFIC AVE ‐ GARNER AVE
Unsafe Speed
80' Direction: North
22350 Hit & Run: No Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Male Age: 24
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parking Maneuver
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Driver North 2008 ‐ Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury Not Stated Not Stated
Not Sta Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Parked
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: Not Applicable
Party 2 Parked Vehicle North 2005 ‐ Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9348577 9/22/2020 11:58 Tuesday
Vehicle ‐ Pedestrian Pedestrian
GARNER AVE ‐ ACOSTA
Pedestrian Violation
0' Direction: Not Stated
21954A Hit & Run: No Other Visible Injury # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Not Stated Not Stated
Male Age: 63
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Pedestrian Sobriety: HNBD
Party 1 Pedestrian North 0‐ Pedestrian No Injury
Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated
Female Age: 42
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Passenger Car Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver East 2008 ‐ Passenger Car, Station Wagon, Jeep No Injury 9256768 6/3/2021 19:45 Thursday
Head‐On Other Motor Vehicle
ACOSTA ‐ GARNER AVE
Unsafe Starting or Backing
40' Direction: West
22106 Hit & Run: Misde Property Damage Only # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 Daylight Clear Pty at Fault:1
Unknown Not Stated
Male Age:

Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Backing
Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: Impairment Not Kno
Party 1 Driver East 2007 ‐ No Injury
Air Bag Deployed Not Stated
Male Age: 31
Assoc Factor: Not Stated
Proceeding Straight
Veh Type: Not Stated Sobriety: HNBD
Party 2 Driver West 2018 ‐ No Injury
Settings for Query:Street: GARNER AVECross Street: PACIFIC AVEWithin Distance of: 100Sorted By: Date and Time File Name : Garner & Pacific
Site Code :

Start Date : 2/9/2022
Page No : 1
Garner Ave @ Pacific Ave
Counted By: Eva Hernandez
Weather: Sunny
Hours: 7:00am to 6:00pm
Groups Printed- Cars +
GARNER
From North
ACOSTA
From East
GARNER
From South

PACIFIC
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
07:30 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 7 7 11
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 23 23 0 0 0 12 12 42 Total 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 26 26 0 0 0 20 20 60
08:00 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 46 46 0 0 0 28 28 88 08:15 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 6 6 32 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 6 6 20
08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 4 6
Total 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 30 30 0 0 0 66 66 0 0 0 44 44 146 ***BREAK***
04:00 PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 7 7 24
04:15 PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 12 12 22
04:30 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 7 7 12
04:45 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 8
Total 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 33 33 66
05:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 5 5 16
05:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 10 10 12
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 5 5 14
05:45 PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 14
Total 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 14 14 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 25 25 56
Grand Total 0 0 0 27 27 0 0 0 69 69 0 0 0 110 110 0 0 0 122 122 328 Apprch % 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100
Total % 0 0 0 8.2 8.2 0 0 0 21 21 0 0 0 33.5 33.5 0 0 0 37.2 37.2

CITY OF SALINAS

TURNING MOVEMENT PROGRAM
File Name : Garner & Pacific
Site Code :

Start Date : 2/9/2022
Page No : 2
Garner Ave @ Pacific Ave
Counted By: Eva Hernandez
Weather: Sunny
Hours: 7:00am to 6:00pm
GARNER

PACIFIC
ACOSTA
GARNER
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Peds
27 Out In Total
0 27 27
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Peds
69 Out Total In
0 69 69
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Peds
110
Out In Total
0 110 110
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Peds
122
Total Out In
0 122 122
2/9/2022 07:00 AM
2/9/2022 05:45 PM
Cars +
North

CITY OF SALINAS

TURNING MOVEMENT PROGRAM
File Name : Garner & Pacific
Site Code :

Start Date : 2/9/2022
Page No : 3
Garner Ave @ Pacific Ave
Counted By: Eva Hernandez
Weather: Sunny
Hours: 7:00am to 6:00pm
GARNER
From North
ACOSTA
From East
GARNER
From South

PACIFIC
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 23 23 0 0 0 12 12 42 08:00 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 46 46 0 0 0 28 28 88 08:15 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 6 6 32 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 6 6 20
Total Volume 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 37 37 0 0 0 87 87 0 0 0 52 52 182 % App. Total 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100
PHF .000 .000 .000 .500 .500 .000 .000 .000 .771 .771 .000 .000 .000 .473 .473 .000 .000 .000 .464 .464 .517 GARNER

PACIFIC
ACOSTA
GARNER
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Peds
6 Out In Total
0 6 6
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Peds
37 Out Total In
0 37 37
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Peds
87 Out In Total
0 87 87
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Peds
52 Total Out In
0 52 52
Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM
Cars +
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY OF SALINAS

TURNING MOVEMENT PROGRAM

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-463, Version: 1
North Main Street Improvement Project, CIP 9278
Approve a Resolution accepting the North Main Street Improvement Project, CIP 9278 for maintenance and responsibility.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/31/2022
powered by Legistar™

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ANDREW EASTERLING, TRAFFIC ENGINEER
TITLE: THE NORTH MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP
9278) ACCEPTANCE
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion accepting the North Main Street Improvement Project (CIP No. 9278) for maintenance and responsibility.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council approve a Resolution accepting the North Main Street Improvement Project (CIP No. 9278) for maintenance and responsibility.

BACKGROUND:

The City has had an adaptive traffic signal system on North Main Street from Bernal Drive to Alvin Drive to optimize throughput progression on North Main Street. The adaptive traffic signal system on North Main Street is called InSync and it is provided by Rhythm. The system uses proprietary algorithms to adjust signal timing, to better adapt to traffic conditions. The system communicates to traffic signals on North Main Street to create green tunnels and reduce travel delays.

The Northridge Mall Expansion project was responsible for mitigating traffic impacts on North Main Street. The project was responsible for extending the adaptive signal system along North Main Street to the traffic signals along the mall's frontage, so that the entire system ran from Bernal Drive to Boronda Rd. The City collected fair share traffic mitigation fees from the Northridge Mall Expansion Project to extend the InSync adaptive signal system coverage along North Main Street.

Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc, was awarded the contract for Traffic Signal Maintenance in December 2018, through Council Resolution No. 21536 (Attachment 1). The contract includes providing preventative and routine traffic signal maintenance, responsive maintenance, emergency repair, inspection support, and supervision for the maintenance of traffic signals within the City of Salinas. Because of the company's in-depth understanding of the City’s signal system and InSync adaptive traffic signal technology, the City’s maintenance Contractor was approved to perform the signal modifications needed for the North Main Street Improvement Project. The agreement with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc for the North Main Street Improvement Project was for $37,102.50 (Attachment 2).

The project began on April 1, 2021, and work was substantially complete on August 20, 2021.

There were no contract change orders on this project. The City monitored construction work to ensure prevailing wage requirements and contract obligations relate to labor compliance were met.

On August 12, 2022, all labor compliance discrepancies were resolved for this contract. Now that all contract requirements have been met, staff recommends that the North Main Street Improvement Project be accepted for maintenance and responsibility.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This action does not support a specific City Council Goal.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There was no impact to the general fund. The signal modifications along North Main Street are part of the Northridge Mall Expansion traffic mitigation program and were funded by development fees.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1: Resolution No. 21536
Attachment 2: Agreement with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc 1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE NORTH MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP 9278) FOR MAINTENANCE AND

RESPONSIBILITY
WHEREAS, the Northridge Mall Expansion project was responsible for mitigating traffic impacts on North Main Street; and
WHEREAS, the City collected fair share traffic mitigation fees from the Northridge Mall Expansion Project to extend the InSync adaptive signal system coverage along North Main Street; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into an agreement with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc to install the adaptive signal system along the mall’s frontage as part of the North Main Street Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, the project began on April 1, 2021, and work was substantially complete on August 20, 2021. There were no contract change orders on this project; and WHEREAS, the City entered into an agreement with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc to install the adaptive signal system along the mall’s frontage as part of the North Main Street Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2022, all labor compliance discrepancies were resolved for this contract.

WHEREAS, now that all contract requirements have been met, staff recommends that the North Main Street Improvement project be accepted for maintenance and responsibility.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby accepts the North Main Street Improvement Project (CIP 9278) for maintenance and responsibility.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 6
th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
2 ________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. 22071 (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING EXCEPTION TO LOW BID COMPETITION AND

APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS, INC TO

PERFORM TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS FOR THE NORTH MAIN STREET

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, traffic staff initiated a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Traffic Signal Preventive Maintenance services on October 5th, 2018. Based on qualifications submitted, Staff recommended awarding contract for Traffic Signal Preventive Maintenance and Emergency Repair Service to Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc; and
WHEREAS, the North Main Street Improvement Project require traffic signal modifications to optimize traffic flow along North Main Street along the Northridge Mall frontage; and
WHEREAS, Northridge Mall paid traffic impact mitigation fees associated with the mall expansion to help fund improvements along the corridor; and WHEREAS, Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. technicians have been maintaining and servicing the City’s traffic signal system since 2015, and understand the City’s advanced traffic signal adaptive system; and
WHEREAS, because of this expertise with the adaptive traffic signal system, Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. is poised to deliver the desired traffic signal modifications effectively at a lower cost to the City and that a low bid based competition will not yield the best value to the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Salinas City Council that in order to expedite project timelines and reduce overall cost to City, the said signal modifications shall be done by Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc., excepted from competitive bid in accordance with Section 12-27 of the Salinas Municipal Code.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Council authorizes said agreement with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. for the traffic signal modifications for the North Main Street Improvement Project (CIP # 9278) in the amount of $37,102.50.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 30th day of March 2021, by the following votes:

AYES: Councilmembers: Barrera, Cromeenes, González, McShane, Osornio, Rocha and Mayor Craig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6AD7CF88-D8A2-4E4E-A669-CC40444B4A55 Page | 2
APPROVED:
___________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6AD7CF88-D8A2-4E4E-A669-CC40444B4A55 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 1 of 12
Bear Electrical Services, Inc.

March 2021

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SALINAS AND BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

Traffic Signal Modifications for the North Main Street Improvement Project (CIP 9278) THIS AGREEMENT is executed this 30th day of March, 2021, (“Agreement” or “Contract”) between the City of Salinas, a California Charter city and municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”) and Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc., a California corporation. (Hereinafter “Contractor”).

IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Scope. Contractor hereby agrees to provide to the City, as the scope of services under this Agreement, the following services: Traffic Signal Modifications. Scope of work is further discussed in Contractor’s Proposal dated 03/05/2021, Attachment B.

2. Timeliness. Contractor shall perform all tasks in a timely fashion, as set forth more specifically in Section 3 below. Failure to so perform is hereby deemed a material breach of this Agreement, and City may terminate this Agreement with no further liability hereunder, or the city may agree in writing with Contractor to an extension of time.

3. Term. The work under this Agreement shall commence 4/01/2021 and shall be completed by 6/31/2021 unless City grants a written extension of time as set forth in Section 2 above.

4. Payment. City agrees to pay, and Contractor agrees to accept as full and fair consideration for the performance of this Agreement, Thirty-seven Thousand one hundred two Dollars and fifty cents ($37,102.50). Contractor has no right of reimbursement for expenses under this Agreement. Compensation shall become due and payable 30 days after City’s approval of Contractor’s submission of monthly written invoices to the City. The payment of any compensation shall be contingent upon performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the City. If City determines that the work set forth in the written invoice has not been performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, City shall not be responsible for payment until such time as the work has been satisfactorily performed.

5. Meet & Confer. Contractor agrees to meet and confer with City or its agents or employees with regard to services as set forth herein as may be required by City to insure timely and adequate performance of this Agreement.

6. Insurance. Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance meeting the requirements specified in Attachment A hereto.

7. Indemnification. Contractor shall hold harmless, defend at its own expense, and indemnify City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against all liability, claims, damages, losses, and/or expenses including reasonable City attorney fees arising from all acts or omissions of Contractor or its officers, agents, or employees arising DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A55863A-5494-47DD-82CA-61523AAC4F9F Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 2 of 12
Bear Electrical Services, Inc.

March 2021
out of the performance of the work under this Contract, caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Contractor, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, except where caused by the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

8. Licensing. Contractor warrants that it is properly licensed to perform the work specified under this Agreement, including but not limited to possession of a current City business license.

9. Termination. City may terminate this Agreement upon ten days’ written notice. The amount of damages, if any, as a result of such termination may be decided by negotiations between the parties or before a court of competent jurisdiction.

10. Agency. In performing the services specified under this Agreement, Contractor is hereby deemed to be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of City.

11. Non-Assignability. The rights and obligations of Contractor hereunder are not assignable and cannot be delegated without written consent of City.

12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes any and all prior agreements, whether oral or written, relating to the subject matter thereof. Any modification of the Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing signed by both parties hereto.

13. Validity. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.

14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts.

15. Laws. Contractor agrees that in the performance of this Agreement it will comply with all applicable State, Federal and local laws and regulations including those outlined in Attachment C. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, County of Monterey, and City of Salinas.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is entered into by the parties hereto on the day and year first written above.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A55863A-5494-47DD-82CA-61523AAC4F9F Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 3 of 12
Bear Electrical Services, Inc.

March 2021

CITY OF SALINAS
__________________________________
Steven S. Carrigan
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney, or
Rhonda Combs, Assistant City Attorney

CONTRACTOR
___________________________________
By (Printed Name):___________________
Its (Title):___________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A55863A-5494-47DD-82CA-61523AAC4F9F Project Manager
Brent Paulson
Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 4 of 12
Bear Electrical Services, Inc.

March 2021
Attachment A
Insurance Requirements
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, and for three years thereafter, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, his/her/its officers, agents, representatives, employees, and/or subcontractors.

MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Commercial General Liability (“CGL”): Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an occurrence basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO Form CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form CA 0001 covering Code 1 (any auto), with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employers’ Liability insurance with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

4. Contractors’ Pollution Legal Liability and/or Asbestos Legal Liability and/or Errors and Omissions (if project involves environmental hazards): with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 policy aggregate, on an annual basis.

If the Contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Contractor requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.

Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the Contractor shall cause the insurer shall to reduce or eliminate such self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the Contractor shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations and automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A55863A-5494-47DD-82CA-61523AAC4F9F Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 5 of 12
Bear Electrical Services, Inc.

March 2021
or on behalf of the Contractor. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, CG 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.

4. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted by Contractor to the City.

5. If the services involve lead-based paint or asbestos identification/remediation, the Contractor’s Pollution Liability policy shall not contain lead-based paint or asbestos exclusions. If the services involve mold identification/remediation, the Contractor’s Pollution Liability policy shall not contain a mold exclusion, and the definition of Pollution shall include microbial matter, including mold.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby agrees to waive rights of subrogation which any insurer of Contractor may acquire from Contractor by virtue of the payment of any loss. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation. The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors.

Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with original Certificates of Insurance including an additional insured endorsement and all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to City before work begins.

However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements, required by these specifications, at any time.

Subcontractors
Contractor shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that City is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors. For CGL coverage subcontractors shall provide coverage with a form at least as broad as CG 20 38 04 13.

Maintenance of Insurance
Maintenance of insurance by Contractor as specified shall in no way be interpreted as relieving DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A55863A-5494-47DD-82CA-61523AAC4F9F Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 6 of 12
Bear Electrical Services, Inc.

March 2021
Contractor of its indemnification obligations or any responsibility whatsoever and the Contractor may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it deems necessary.

Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

Surety Bonds
Contractor shall provide the following Surety Bonds:

1. Payment bond

2. Performance bond

3. Maintenance bond
The Payment Bond and the Performance Bond shall be in a sum equal to the contract price. If the Performance Bond provides for a one-year warranty, a separate Maintenance Bond is not necessary. If the warranty period specified in the contract is for longer than one year a Maintenance Bond equal to 10% of the contract price is required. Bonds shall be duly executed by a responsible corporate surety, authorized to issue such bonds in the State of California and secured through an authorized agent with an office in California.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A55863A-5494-47DD-82CA-61523AAC4F9F Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 7 of 12
Bear Electrical Services, Inc.

March 2021
Attachment B
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A55863A-5494-47DD-82CA-61523AAC4F9F Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page
8 of 12
Bear Electrical Services, Inc.

March 2021
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A55863A-5494-47DD-82CA-61523AAC4F9F Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page
9 of 12
Bear Electrical Services, Inc.

March 2021
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A55863A-5494-47DD-82CA-61523AAC4F9F Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 10 of 12
Bear Electrical Services, Inc.

March 2021
Attachment C
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS’ STATE LABOR CODE
Labor Law Requirements
(CCR Title 8, Section 16421)
This public works project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). All work shall be in accordance with wage scales and applicable determinations made by the Director of the DIR, as provided by Article 2, Chapter 1, Division 2, Part 7 of the Labor Code of the State of California, commencing with §1771.

Penalties for violations may be applied by the DIR pursuant to the Labor Code §1813 and §1815. The Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City (with counsel reasonably approved by the City) against any claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties, or other amounts arising out of the failure or alleged failure of any person or entity (including Contractor and its subcontractors) to pay prevailing wages as determined pursuant to Labor Code §1720, and hereby agrees to, §§1771-1774; to employ apprentices pursuant to Labor Code §1777.5 etseq., and/or to comply with the other applicable provisions of Labor Code §1720 etseq., §§1771- 1774, §1777.5 et seq., and the implementing regulations of the DIR in connection with the scope of work. This indemnification section shall survive the expiration of the Term.

The Federal and State Labor Law requirements applicable to the Agreement are composed of, but not limited, to the following items:

1. Payment of Prevailing Wage Rates: All contractors, including subcontractors, shall pay no less than the prevailing rate of wages (Labor Code §1775), including the rates for holidays and overtime work (Labor Code §§1813 and 1815), to all workers employed in the execution of the contract (Labor Code §1774), pursuant to Labor Code §§1720-1784.

The prevailing rates are those issued as wage determinations by the DIR, for each craft, classification and type of work. The current wage rate information can be found at the DIR’s website at: https://www.dir.ca.gov/oprl/DPreWageDetermination.htm.

Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City’s Public Works Department (principal place of office). Contractor shall post a copy of the determination of the Director of DIR of the prevailing rate of per diem wages at each job site.

2. Apprentices: Contractor and subcontractors shall employ registered apprentices on this public works Agreement pursuant to Labor Code §1777.5. All contractors on this project (prime and subcontractors) are required to submit the Division of Apprenticeship Standards’ (“DAS”) Public Works Contract Award Information (DAS 140) form to all applicable apprenticeship committees no later than 10 days before commencing work.

Additionally, all contractors are required to request registered apprentices (DAS 142 form).

Penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages (for non-exempt projects) and failure to employ apprentices include forfeitures and debarment under Labor Code §§1775 and 1777.7.

3. Certified Payroll Records: All contractors, including subcontractors, must maintain and file certified payroll records (“CPRs”) pursuant to Labor Code §1776. Additionally, all contractors and subcontractors must furnish certified payroll records into the DIR’s DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A55863A-5494-47DD-82CA-61523AAC4F9F Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 11 of 12
Bear Electrical Services, Inc.

March 2021
Electronic Certified Payroll Reporting (“eCPRs”) database (https://efiling.dir.ca.gov/eCPR/pages/eCPROnlineForm.jsp). Penalties apply to Contractor and any Subcontractors for failure to do so under Labor Code §1777.

4. Subcontracting: Contractors are required to list all subcontractors hired to perform work on this public works agreement when that work is in an excess of one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor’s total bid or ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever is greater.

See Public Contracts Code §4104.

5. Proper Licensing/Registration: All contractors and subcontractors are required to be properly licensed, in accordance with the Provisions of Chapter 9 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code and subject to the requirements of §4104 of the Public Contract Code. In addition, all contractors including subcontractors must submit proof of current registration to perform public work, pursuant to Labor Code §1771.1. Contractors are required to be properly licensed and to require all subcontractors to be properly licensed. Penalties for employing workers while unlicensed under Labor Code §1021 and under the California Contractors License Law, found at Business and Professions Code §7000 et. seq.

6. Job Site Notices: Contractors are required to post all required notices (posters) on the job site in an area accessible to all workers, including subcontractors. Posters must be readable and placed in visible areas allowing workers to access the posters before, during, and after work shifts. Jobsites with multiple locations must include a portable poster board to ensure continued access to the information. Posters placed in foreman, supervisor, or employee vehicles, in an offsite job trailer, or inside a temporary restroom do not meet the posting requirement. Posters may be printed from the DIR’s website at:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/wpnodb.html.

7. Nondiscrimination in Employment – Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”):

Employment discrimination is prohibited, pursuant to Labor Code §1777.6, the Government Code, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

8. Kickbacks Prohibited: Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from recapturing wages illegally by accepting or extracting “kickbacks” from employee wages pursuant to Labor Code §1778.

9. Acceptance of Fees Prohibited: Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from accepting fees for registering any person for public work or for filling work orders on public works contracts, pursuant to Labor Code §§1779 and 1780.

10. Unfair Competition Prohibited: Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from engaging in unfair competition as specified under Business and Professions Code §§17200 - 17208.

11. Workers’ Compensation: Contractors and subcontractors must be properly insured for Workers’ Compensation under Labor Code §1861. Contractor hereby represents that Contractor is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, which require every employee to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Contractor will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement.

12. OSHA: Contractors and subcontractors must abide by the Occupational, Safety, and Health Laws and regulations that apply.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A55863A-5494-47DD-82CA-61523AAC4F9F Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 12 of 12
Bear Electrical Services, Inc.

March 2021
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A55863A-5494-47DD-82CA-61523AAC4F9F City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-473, Version: 1
65 W. Alisal Gutter Replacement
Approve a Resolution authorizing an Agreement for Services with Scudder Roofing the replacement of the gutters on the building at 65 W. Alisal at a total cost of $30,560, with a 10% contingency for any price increase.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/31/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS, FACILITIES MAINTENANCE DIVISION FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: RONALD PATTERSON, FLEET MAINTENANCE MANANGER
TITLE: REPLACEMENT OF GUTTERS AT 65 W. ALISAL
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

It is recommended that City Council approve a resolution authorizing the replacement of the gutters on the building at 65 W. Alisal at a total cost of $30,560, with a 10% contingency for any price increase due to market volatility or unforeseen issues.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that City Council approve a resolution authorizing the replacement of the metal gutters at 65 W. Alisal at a total cost of $30,560. It is further recommended that a contingency of 10% be allowed for any price increase due to market volatility or unforeseen issues.

BACKGROUND:

Facilities Maintenance requested quotes to replace the gutter system at 65 W. Alisal. The gutters leak during heavy rain and cause interior damage to the building. We had several contractors out to look for the cause of the leak and it was deemed that the gutter system has started to fail. The gutter system at the building is enclosed by architectural detail. They are not the more traditional gutters seen on many buildings. It was difficult to find someone willing to get us quotes. We reached out to Mid-Cal Heating and Sheet Metal, Geo. H Wilson and Scudder Roofing for quotes.

Only Geo Wilson and Scudder provided quotes. We chose Scudder Roofing to perform the required work.

We are asking for a 10% contingency in case there are any pricing increases due to materials or labor force change.

The city can utilize cooperative purchases with other government agencies. Local businesses are given the opportunity to compete against these contracts. The quote from Scudder Roofing satisfies the purpose and requirements of Article III-A, Local Purchasing Preference of the Salinas Municipal Code.

Page | 2
CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The requested Council action directly relates to Council’s Strategic Plans or Goals of providing “Well Planned City and Excellent Infrastructure”. The replacement of the failed gutters will provide a healthy as safe work environment.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Funds are appropriated and available in the Facilities Reserve account (1000.80.8003-63.6010).

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Agreement for Services
RESOLUTION NO.____________(N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE GUTTER SYSTEM TO BE REPAIRED AT 65. W ALISAL
WHEREAS, Funds are available in 1000.80.8003-63.6010; and WHEREAS, the gutter system at 65 W. Alisal has started to leak into the building due to failing; and
WHEREAS, Scudder Roofing provided a quote for the gutters system at a cost of $30,560; and
WHEARAS, a contingency of ten percent be allowed for any price increase due to market volatility; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Scudder Roofing for the replacement of the gutters system at 65 W. Alisal at a cost of $30,560 with a 10% contingency for market volatility for a total approved cost of $33,616.

PASSED AND APPROVED this September 6th, 2022 by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:

Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 1 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SALINAS AND SCUDDER ROOFING AND SCUDDER SUN ENERGY 65 W. GUTTER REPAIRS
THIS AGREEMENT is executed this 18th day of July 2022, Agreement between the City of Salinas, a California Charter city and municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”) and Scudder Roofing and Scudder Sun Energy, a California corporation (Hereinafter “Contractor”).

IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Scope. Contractor hereby agrees to provide to the City, as the scope of services under this Agreement, the following services: Reline architectural gutters. Scope of work is further discussed in Solicitation, Attachment B and Contractor’s Proposal dated 04/11/22, Attachment C further states Department of Industrial Relations requirements.

2. Timeliness. Contractor shall perform all tasks in a timely fashion, as set forth more specifically in Section 3 below. Failure to so perform is hereby deemed a material breach of this Agreement, and City may terminate this Agreement with no further liability hereunder, or the city may agree in writing with Contractor to an extension of time.

3. Term. The work under this Agreement shall commence upon agreement approval and shall be completed by 6/30/23 unless City grants a written extension of time as set forth in Section 2 above.

4. Payment. City agrees to pay and Contractor agrees to accept as full and fair consideration for the performance of this Agreement, Thirty Thousand Five Hundered and Sixty Dollars ($30,560) Which includes the 2% bond charge. Contractor has no right of reimbursement for expenses under this Agreement. Compensation shall become due and payable 30 days after City’s approval of Contractor’s submission of monthly written invoices to the City.

The payment of any compensation shall be contingent upon performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the City. If City determines that the work set forth in the written invoice has not been performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, City shall not be responsible for payment until such time as the work has been satisfactorily performed.

5. Meet & Confer. Contractor agrees to meet and confer with City or its agents or employees with regard to services as set forth herein as may be required by City to insure timely and adequate performance of this Agreement.

6. Insurance. Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance meeting the requirements specified in Attachment A hereto.

7. Indemnification. Contractor shall hold harmless, defend at its own expense, and DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 2 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
indemnify City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against all liability, claims, damages, losses, and/or expenses including reasonable City attorney fees arising from all acts or omissions of Contractor or its officers, agents, or employees arising out of the performance of the work under this Contract, caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Contractor, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, except where caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

8. Licensing. Contractor warrants that it is properly licensed to perform the work specified under this Agreement, including but not limited to possession of a current City business license.

9. Termination. City may terminate this Agreement upon ten days’ written notice. The amount of damages, if any, as a result of such termination may be decided by negotiations between the parties or before a court of competent jurisdiction.

10. Agency. In performing the services specified under this Agreement, Contractor is hereby deemed to be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of City.

11. Non-Assignability. The rights and obligations of Contractor hereunder are not assignable and cannot be delegated without written consent of City.

12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes any and all prior agreements, whether oral or written, relating to the subject matter thereof. Any modification of the Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing signed by both parties hereto.

13. Validity. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.

14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts.

15. Laws. Contractor agrees that in the performance of this Agreement it will comply with all applicable State, Federal and local laws and regulations. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, County of Monterey, and City of Salinas.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is entered into by the parties hereto on the day and year first written above.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 3 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022

CITY OF SALINAS
__________________________________
David Jacobs
Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney, or
Rhonda Combs, Assistant City Attorney

CONTRACTOR
___________________________________
By (Printed Name):___________________
Its (Title):___________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Peter H Scudder
President
Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 4 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
Attachment A
Insurance Requirements
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, and for three years thereafter, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, his/her/its officers, agents, representatives, employees, and/or subcontractors.

MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Commercial General Liability (“CGL”): Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an occurrence basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO Form CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form CA 0001 covering Code 1 (any auto), with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employers’ Liability insurance with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

4. Contractors’ Pollution Legal Liability and/or Asbestos Legal Liability and/or Errors and Omissions (if project involves environmental hazards): with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 policy aggregate, on an annual basis.

If the Contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Contractor requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.

Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the Contractor shall cause the insurer shall to reduce or eliminate such self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the Contractor shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations and automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 5 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
or on behalf of the Contractor. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, CG 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.

4. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted by Contractor to the City.

5. If the services involve lead-based paint or asbestos identification/remediation, the Contractor’s Pollution Liability policy shall not contain lead-based paint or asbestos exclusions. If the services involve mold identification/remediation, the Contractor’s Pollution Liability policy shall not contain a mold exclusion, and the definition of Pollution shall include microbial matter, including mold.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby agrees to waive rights of subrogation which any insurer of Contractor may acquire from Contractor by virtue of the payment of any loss. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation. The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors.

Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with original Certificates of Insurance including an additional insured endorsement and all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to City before work begins.

However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements, required by these specifications, at any time.

Subcontractors
Contractor shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that City is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors. For CGL coverage subcontractors shall provide coverage with a form at least as broad as CG 20 38 04 13.

Maintenance of Insurance
Maintenance of insurance by Contractor as specified shall in no way be interpreted as relieving DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 6 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
Contractor of its indemnification obligations or any responsibility whatsoever and the Contractor may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it deems necessary.

Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

Surety Bonds
Contractor shall provide the following Surety Bonds:

1. Payment bond

2. Performance bond

3. Maintenance bond
The Payment Bond and the Performance Bond shall be in a sum equal to the contract price. If the Performance Bond provides for a one-year warranty, a separate Maintenance Bond is not necessary. If the warranty period specified in the contract is for longer than one year a Maintenance Bond equal to 10% of the contract price is required. Bonds shall be duly executed by a responsible corporate surety, authorized to issue such bonds in the State of California and secured through an authorized agent with an office in California.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 7 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
Attachment B
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page
8 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page
9 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 10 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 8/18/2022
Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 11 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 12 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 13 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 14 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 15 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
Attachment C
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS’ STATE LABOR CODE
Labor Law Requirements
(CCR Title 8, Section 16421)
This public works project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). All work shall be in accordance with wage scales and applicable determinations made by the Director of the DIR, as provided by Article 2, Chapter 1, Division 2, Part 7 of the Labor Code of the State of California, commencing with §1771.

Penalties for violations may be applied by the DIR pursuant to the Labor Code §1813 and §1815. The Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City (with counsel reasonably approved by the City) against any claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties, or other amounts arising out of the failure or alleged failure of any person or entity (including Contractor and its subcontractors) to pay prevailing wages as determined pursuant to Labor Code §1720, and hereby agrees to, §§1771-1774; to employ apprentices pursuant to Labor Code §1777.5 etseq., and/or to comply with the other applicable provisions of Labor Code §1720 etseq., §§1771- 1774, §1777.5 et seq., and the implementing regulations of the DIR in connection with the scope of work. This indemnification section shall survive the expiration of the Term.

The Federal and State Labor Law requirements applicable to the Agreement are composed of, but not limited, to the following items:

1. Payment of Prevailing Wage Rates: All contractors, including subcontractors, shall pay no less than the prevailing rate of wages (Labor Code §1775), including the rates for holidays and overtime work (Labor Code §§1813 and 1815), to all workers employed in the execution of the contract (Labor Code §1774), pursuant to Labor Code §§1720-1784.

The prevailing rates are those issued as wage determinations by the DIR, for each craft, classification and type of work. The current wage rate information can be found at the DIR’s website at: https://www.dir.ca.gov/oprl/DPreWageDetermination.htm.

Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City’s Public Works Department (principal place of office). Contractor shall post a copy of the determination of the Director of DIR of the prevailing rate of per diem wages at each job site.

2. Apprentices: Contractor and subcontractors shall employ registered apprentices on this public works Agreement pursuant to Labor Code §1777.5. All contractors on this project (prime and subcontractors) are required to submit the Division of Apprenticeship Standards’ (“DAS”) Public Works Contract Award Information (DAS 140) form to all applicable apprenticeship committees no later than 10 days before commencing work.

Additionally, all contractors are required to request registered apprentices (DAS 142 form).

Penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages (for non-exempt projects) and failure to employ apprentices include forfeitures and debarment under Labor Code §§1775 and 1777.7.

3. Certified Payroll Records: All contractors, including subcontractors, must maintain and file certified payroll records (“CPRs”) pursuant to Labor Code §1776. Additionally, all contractors and subcontractors must furnish certified payroll records into the DIR’s Electronic Certified Payroll Reporting (“eCPRs”) database DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 16 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
(https://efiling.dir.ca.gov/eCPR/pages/eCPROnlineForm.jsp). Penalties apply to Contractor and any Subcontractors for failure to do so under Labor Code §1777.

4. Subcontracting: Contractors are required to list all subcontractors hired to perform work on this public works agreement.

5. Proper Licensing/Registration: All contractors and subcontractors are required to be properly licensed, in accordance with the Provisions of Chapter 9 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code and subject to the requirements of §4104 of the Public Contract Code. In addition, all contractors including subcontractors must submit proof of current registration to perform public work, pursuant to Labor Code §1771.1. Contractors are required to be properly licensed and to require all subcontractors to be properly licensed. Penalties for employing workers while unlicensed under Labor Code §1021 and under the California Contractors License Law, found at Business and Professions Code §7000 et. seq.

6. Job Site Notices: Contractors are required to post all required notices (posters) on the job site in an area accessible to all workers, including subcontractors. Posters must be readable and placed in visible areas allowing workers to access the posters before, during, and after work shifts. Jobsites with multiple locations must include a portable poster board to ensure continued access to the information. Posters placed in foreman, supervisor, or employee vehicles, in an offsite job trailer, or inside a temporary restroom do not meet the posting requirement. Posters may be printed from the DIR’s website at:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/wpnodb.html.

7. Nondiscrimination in Employment – Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”):

Employment discrimination is prohibited, pursuant to Labor Code §1777.6, the Government Code, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

8. Kickbacks Prohibited: Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from recapturing wages illegally by accepting or extracting “kickbacks” from employee wages pursuant to Labor Code §1778.

9. Acceptance of Fees Prohibited: Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from accepting fees for registering any person for public work or for filling work orders on public works contracts, pursuant to Labor Code §§1779 and 1780.

10. Unfair Competition Prohibited: Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from engaging in unfair competition as specified under Business and Professions Code §§17200 - 17208.

11. Workers’ Compensation: Contractors and subcontractors must be properly insured for Workers’ Compensation under Labor Code §1861. Contractor hereby represents that Contractor is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, which require every employee to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Contractor will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement.

12. OSHA: Contractors and subcontractors must abide by the Occupational, Safety, and Health Laws and regulations that apply.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 17 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 18 of 18
Scudder Roofing
July 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AA09658-9A29-4170-9EC8-B6CC12B8DD43 City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-483, Version: 1
Cal Cities Voting Delegates
Approve appointment of Mayor Kimbley Craig as the voting delegate and Councilmember Anthony Rocha as the alternate voting delegate for the annual Cal Cities’ business meeting.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/31/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION
FROM: PATRICIA M. BARAJAS, CITY CLERK
TITLE: CAL CITIES’ VOTING DELEGATES
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Motion to approve appointment of Mayor Kimbley Craig as the voting delegate and Councilmember Anthony Rocha as the alternate voting delegate for the annual Cal Cities’ business meeting on policy resolutions and further authorize the City’s delegate to vote in support/opposition of the Cal Cities’ proposed Policy Resolutions.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council approve appointment of Mayor Kimbley Craig as the voting delegate and Councilmember Anthony Rocha as the alternate voting delegate for the annual Cal Cities’ business meeting on policy resolutions and authorize the City’s delegate to vote on policy resolutions accordingly.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Cal Cities 2022 Annual Conference and Expo is scheduled for September 7 - 9 in Long Beach, California. An important part of the Annual Conference is the annual business meeting where the membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish policy. In order to vote on the proposed policy resolution at the annual business meeting, voting delegates and alternates must be appointed by the City Council.

BACKGROUND:

At its annual business meeting, the Cal Cities adopts policy resolutions on issues of statewide importance that have direct bearing on municipal affairs and are of broad municipal interests. This year’s general assembly and business meeting will be held during the League’s annual conference on Friday, September 9, 2022, at the Long Beach Convention Center. Each city must appoint a voting delegate and may appoint up to two alternates to vote on the policy resolutions. Action by the City Council is required consistent with Cal Cities bylaws. Mayor Kimbley Craig wishes to serve as the city’s voting delegate and recommends Councilmember Anthony Rocha serve as the alternate delegate.

Page | 2
Cal Cities primary means for developing policy is through their standing policy committees and Board of Directors. Additionally, any city, elected or appointed city official, or Cal Cities Division, Department, or Policy Committee may submit a resolution sixty days before the business meeting.

Resolutions signed by at least 47 delegates may be introduced during the annual conference for issues that developed after the submittal deadline.

This year, the Cal Cities did not receive resolutions to be considered at the Annual Conference, however there will be an amendment to Cal Cities bylaws to be considered and voted on during the business meeting. The proposed bylaws amendment packet is attached hereto.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Identifying voting delegates of the City Council to participate in Cal Cities Annual Business meeting supports the City Council’s goal of effective and culturally responsive government and encourages participation in Cal Cities events and activities that help build strong strategic partnerships.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The City Clerk’s Office in collaboration with the City Manager and Mayor is responsible for the appointment of the voting delegates consistent with Cal Cities bylaws.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

No fiscal and sustainability impact.

ATTACHMENTS:

Letter from Cal Cities reg. Voting Delegates
2022 Proposed Bylaws Amendment Packet
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: June 1, 2022
TO: City Managers and City Clerks
RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference & Expo – September 7-9, 2022 Cal Cities 2022 Annual Conference & Expo is scheduled for September 7-9, 2022 in Long Beach. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (during General Assembly) on Friday, September 9. At this meeting, Cal Cities membership considers and acts on resolutions that establish Cal Cities policy.

In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting delegate. Your city may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity.

Please complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to Cal Cities office no later than Friday, September 2. This will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference. • Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council.

When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken, or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone. • Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration will open by June 1 on the Cal Cities website. In order to cast a vote, at least one voter must be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of the voting delegate card. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegate Desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the Business Meeting.

Council Action Advised by August 31, 2022
• Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official. • Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, they must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk and obtain the special sticker on their badges.

The Voting Delegate Desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, September 7, 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.; Thursday, September 8, 7:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.; and Friday, September 9, 7:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. The Voting Delegate Desk will also be open at the Business Meeting on Friday, but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to Cal Cities office by Friday, September 2. If you have questions, please call Darla Yacub at (916) 658-8254.

Attachments:
• Annual Conference Voting Procedures
• Voting Delegate/Alternate Form
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org Annual Conference Voting Procedures

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the Business Meeting.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate or alternate.

6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting.

CITY:________________________________________
2022 ANNUAL CONFERENCE

VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM
Please complete this form and return it to Cal Cities office by Friday, September 2, 2022. Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates.

To vote at the Annual Business Meeting (General Assembly), voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council.

Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be obtained only at the Voting Delegate Desk.

1. VOTING DELEGATE
Name:

Title:

2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE Name: Name:

Title: Title:

ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES OR ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate(s).

Name: ____________________________________ Email_________________________________ Mayor or City Clerk_________________________ Date____________ Phone________________ (circle one) (signature) Please complete and return by Friday, September 2, 2022 to:

Darla Yacub, Assistant to the Administrative Services Director E-mail: [email protected]; Phone: (916) 658-8254
2022 Annual Conference and Expo

PROPOSED BYLAWS AMENDMENTS
General Assembly
September 9, 2022
If you have any questions regarding these materials, please contact Norman Coppinger at [email protected] or by phone at 916.658.8277.
2021-2022

CAL CITIES OFFICERS
President
Cindy Silva
Mayor Pro Tem,
Walnut Creek
First Vice President
Ali Taj
Council Member,
Artesia
Second Vice President
Daniel Parra
Council Member,
Fowler
Immediate Past President
Cheryl Viegas Walker
Council Member,
El Centro
Executive Director
and CEO
Carolyn M. Coleman
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org August 2022
To: Cal Cities General Assembly
From: Cindy Silva, President
Carolyn Coleman, Executive Director and CEO
Re: Proposed Cal Cities Bylaws Amendments
On July 15, 2022, the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) Board of Directors (Board) voted to present proposed bylaws amendments to the General Assembly at the 2022 Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. This memorandum outlines the history of the proposed amendments, summarizes the amendments, and provides an explanation of the process for adopting amendments to the bylaws.

Background
Beginning in 2017, the Board directed Cal Cities to undertake a strategic planning process that resulted in the adoption of the “Powering Up for California Cities Strategic Grown Plan 2018-2021” (Strategic Growth Plan). The Strategic Growth Plan set forth goals to enhance Cal Cities’ governance to: (a) achieve even higher levels of engagement and effectiveness; (b) ensure optimal engagement by members and effectiveness in supporting fulfillment of the Cal Cities’ mission; and (c) ensure the pathway to leadership is transparent and inclusive.

In furtherance of its governance goals, the Board engaged an association governance consultant (Consultant) to evaluate the Cal Cities governance system and make recommendations for enhancing Cal Cities’ governance. The Consultant gathered and considered input from more than 350 Cal Cities members through advisory groups, roundtable discussions, interviews, and surveys. On July 8, 2021, the Consultant produced a report (Governance Report) detailing 49 recommendations to the Board to deepen the engagement of Cal Cities Member Cities and ensure Cal Cities’ governance is operating at peak performance.

The Governance Report included findings indicating that Cal Cities is a strong organization, with a high level of member engagement, but also highlighted opportunities for Cal Cities to enhance its governance. The opportunities for enhancement included: (a) improving the clarity, ease, and consistency in how the governance system works; (b) clarifying the guidelines for position qualifications and performance expectations; (c) identifying ways to deepen member engagement and enhance the quality of the experience of involvement; and (d) ensuring Cal Cities has an intentional, consistent organizational culture at all levels of the governance system.
1 The findings and recommendations from the Governance Report were presented to the Board during the July 2021 Board meeting. Following a robust exchange of ideas and input, the Board decided to move forward with many of the recommendations, referred other recommendations to a “to be established” board subcommittee for further study, and deferred consideration of the remaining recommendations.

Following Board approval, in September 2021 during the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, the General Assembly voted to approve the following bylaws amendments:

1. Adjust the composition of the Board to achieve a higher impact and be more representative by adding Director seats to the Board for each of the five Diversity Caucuses, and transitioning members of the National League of Cities Board from Cal Cities Directors to one non-voting advisor to the Cal Cities Board.

2. Recognize the Cal Cities Diversity Caucuses in the Cal Cities bylaws to reflect the full contribution the caucuses make to Cal Cities’ mission and vision.

Those amendments became effective on Nov. 24, 2021.

Among the recommendations the Board decided was a priority to move forward was the establishment of a standing Governance Committee to assist the Board in fulfilling its governance function.

At its February 2022 meeting, the Board voted to approve Board policy establishing the Governance Committee with the task of regularly reviewing the governance structures, policies, and practices of Cal Cities and reporting its findings and recommendations to the Board. The Board also approved a one-year work plan for the Governance Committee that established priority governance issues to focus on in its first year.

Following the Board meeting, President Cindy Silva appointed the following Board members to serve on the Governance Committee:
• Cheryl Viegas Walker, Immediate Past President and Council Member, El Centro, Chair • Walt Allen, Council Member, Covina
• Jan Arbuckle, Vice Mayor, Grass Valley
• LaTanya Bellow, Deputy City Manager, Berkeley
• Pippin Dew, Council Member, Vallejo
• Lynne Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Cucamonga
• Karen Goh, Mayor, Bakersfield
• Jim Lewis, City Manager, Pismo Beach
• Lisa Middleton, Mayor, Palm Springs
• John Minto, Mayor, Santee
• David Pollock, Council Member, Moorpark
2 The Governance Committee met in April 2022, and following engaging and productive discussions, brought forward to the Board at its May 2022 meeting several recommendations to further enhance Cal Cities’ governance. Among the recommendations approved by the Board during that meeting are two that require bylaws amendments:

1. Formalize oversight of the Resolutions Committee by establishing the Second Vice President as the chair of the committee, while retaining the President’s authority to appoint the vice chair of the committee.

2. To ensure a more inclusive Nominating Committee, add one committee member appointed from among the Caucus Directors and one additional committee member appointed from among the At-Large Directors for a total of 13 committee members.1 In addition to those recommendations identified by the Governance Committee and approved by the Board, Cal Cities staff identified various non-substantive revisions to the Cal Cities bylaws:

1. Clarify that, unless the Board establishes otherwise, the Cal Cities President appoints the chair of Board-established committees.

2. To avoid confusion and clarify organizational responsibilities, remove “Treasurer” from the title of the Second Vice President.
2 3. To promote consistency, replace the term “Board member(s)” with “Director(s).”3 On July 15, 2022, the Board voted to present these proposed bylaws amendments to the General Assembly at the 2022 Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo.

While the work to enhance Cal Cities’ governance is a process being implemented in phases over several years, the Board believes these proposed amendments constitute important next steps toward ensuring Cal Cities’ governance is operating at peak performance. 1 Under the current bylaws, the Nominating Committee is comprised of 11 Directors. Two committee members are appointed from among At-Large Directors and one from a Department. Divisions participate on a rotation, with Directors residing within eight of the Divisions appointed in even-numbered years and Directors from the other eight appointed in odd-numbered years. 2 Under the current bylaws, the Second Vice President is referred to as “Second Vice President/Treasurer.” However, in practice the Second Vice President does not serve as treasurer of Cal Cities. Rather, that function is performed by the Chief Financial Officer designated in Article VIII, section 5, subdivision b(2), of the Cal Cities bylaws.
3 The current bylaws primarily refer to members of the Cal Cities Board of Directors as “Directors.” However, there are instances in which they are referred to as “Board members.” 3 Procedure for Amending the Cal Cities Bylaws
Amendments to the Cal Cities bylaws may be proposed by the Cal Cities Board and may be adopted: (a) by vote of the Cal Cities General Assembly, or (b) by mail ballot to Member Cities.4 In this case, the amendments will be considered by the General Assembly. Bylaws amendments need to be approved by 2/3 of those voting,5
and the number that constitutes 2/3 of those voting
(a) cannot be less than a majority of the voting delegates present if there is a quorum at the time the vote is taken;6 or (b) cannot be less than a majority of a quorum if the meeting started with a quorum but a quorum is not present when the vote is taken.7 If approved by the General Assembly, the amendments to the bylaws will go into effect after the expiration of a 60-day protest period.8 If, within 60 days after the adoption of the amendments, one-third or more of Member Cities submit a written protest against such amendments, the amendments are automatically suspended until the next Annual Conference and Expo, when they may be taken up again for reconsideration and vote.9 If the amendments are approved by the General Assembly and no protest is lodged, the effective date of the bylaws amendments will be Nov. 9, 2022.
4 Article XVII, Section 1.
5 Article XVII, Section 2.
6 Cal. Corp. Code 7512, subd. (a).
7 Cal. Corp. Code 7512, subd. (d). 8 Article XVII, section 6. 9 Article XVII, section 7.
4 RESOLUTION RELATING TO AMENDMENTS TO THE CAL CITIES BYLAWS (2/3 vote at General Assembly required to approve)
Source: League of California Cities Board of Directors
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation under California law and, as such, is governed by corporate bylaws; and WHEREAS, the Cal Cities Board of Directors (Board) periodically reviews the Cal Cities bylaws for issues of clarity, practicality, compliance with current laws, and responsiveness to membership needs and interests; and
WHEREAS, beginning in 2017, the Board directed Cal Cities to undertake a strategic planning process that resulted in the adoption of the “Powering Up for California Cities Strategic Growth Plan 2018-2021” (Strategic Growth Plan); and
WHEREAS, the Strategic Growth Plan set forth goals to enhance Cal Cities’ governance to: (a) achieve even higher levels of engagement and effectiveness; (b) ensure optimal engagement by members and effectiveness in supporting fulfillment of the Cal Cities’ mission; and (c) ensure the pathway to leadership is transparent and inclusive; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of its governance goals, the Board engaged an expert in association governance who gathered and considered input from more than 350 Cal Cities members through advisory groups, roundtable discussions, interviews, and surveys to evaluate the Cal Cities governance system and make recommendations for enhancing Cal Cities’ governance; and
WHEREAS, in July 2021 the Board decided to move forward with certain recommendations made as a result of that governance evaluation, including a recommendation to establish a standing Governance Committee of the Board to assist the Board in fulfilling its governance function; and
WHEREAS, in February 2022 the Board approved Board policy establishing the Governance Committee and charging it with regularly reviewing the governance structures, policies, and practices of Cal Cities, and reporting its findings and making recommendations to the Board; and
WHEREAS, in 2022 the Governance Committee recommended, and the Board, approved certain changes to the bylaws that: (1) formalize the oversight of the Resolutions Committee; (2) ensure a more inclusive Nominating Committee by adding one committee member appointed from among Caucus Directors and one additional committee member appointed from among AtLarge Directors; (3) clarify that, unless the board establishes otherwise, the Cal Cities President appoints the chair of board-established committees; and (4) make various non-substantive revisions; and
5 WHEREAS, the Cal Cities Board offers the following proposed amendments and additions to the bylaws, as set forth in the attached redlined version of the bylaws specified below, which is hereby incorporated by reference:

1. Amend Article VI, section 3(c) to designate the Second Vice-President as the Resolutions Committee chair, while retaining the President’s authority to appoint the vice chair of the Resolutions Committee;

2. Amend Article VII, section 5(b) to adjust the composition of the Nominating Committee by adding one At-Large Director and one Caucus Director for a total of 13 Nominating Committee members;

3. Amend Article VII, Section 10(d) to provide that, unless the Board establishes otherwise, the Cal Cities President appoints the chair of board-established committees;

4. Replace the title “Second Vice-President/Treasurer” with “Second Vice President” in Article VII, sections 2(a), 5(e), and 10(b); and Article VIII, sections 1, 2(c), and 4;

5. Replace the term “board member(s)” with “Director(s)” in Article VII, sections 5(b), 5(e), and 8; Article XII, section 5(c); and Article XV, section 4; and now therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled during the Annual Conference in Long Beach on September 9, 2022, that the proposed bylaws amendments are hereby approved and Cal Cities shall make the specified amendments to the Cal Cities bylaws set forth in the attached redlined version of the bylaws.

See ATTACHMENT 1 for redline of proposed changes to the bylaws. 6 ATTACHMENT 1
Redline of Proposed Changes to Bylaws
7 Bylaws for the
League of California Cities
…
Article VI. Resolutions
…
Section 3: Resolutions Committee for Annual Conference Resolutions. (a) Resolutions Committee Composition. The Cal Cities President establishes a Resolutions Committee sixty days prior to each Annual Conference, which committee shall consist of:
(i) One elected official from each regional division, appointed by the regional division;
(ii) One elected official from each policy committee, appointed by the policy committee;
(iii) One member from each functional department, appointed by the department;
(iv) One elected official from each caucus, appointed by the caucus; and (v) Up to ten additional members (at least five of whom are elected officials) as the Cal Cities President deems necessary to achieve geographic and population balance, as well as recognize the multiplicity of city functions not represented by the other appointments, including, but not limited to, the perspectives of board and commission members as well as professional staff.
(b) Presidential Appointments. In the event a regional division, policy committee, functional department, or caucus does not make its appointment to the Resolutions Committee, the Cal Cities President may make the appointment on the regional division’s, policy committee’s, functional department’s, or caucus’s behalf.
(c) Chair. The Cal Cities President shall also appoint to the Resolutions Committee a committee chair and vice chairSecond Vice-President shall serve as committee chair. The Cal Cities President shall also appoint to the Resolutions Committee a vice chair.
(d) Minimum Committee Size and Composition. In the event the full committee is not in attendance at the Annual Conference, the Cal Cities President shall appoint a sufficient number of city officials in attendance to achieve a total of thirty. No less than two-thirds of the members of the Resolutions Committee shall be elected officials.
8 (e) Committee Consideration of Proposed Resolutions. Except for resolutions of courtesy, commendation, appreciation or condolence, no resolution expressing the opinion or policy of Cal Cities on any question may be considered or discussed by Cal Cities’ General Assembly, unless it has been first submitted to, and reported on, by the Resolutions Committee. …
Article VII: Board of Directors
…
Section 2: Composition.

The Cal Cities Board is composed of the following:
(a) A President, First Vice-President and Second Vice-President/Treasurer, who each serve a term of one year;
(b) The Immediate Past President who serves for a term of one year, immediately succeeding his or her term as President;
(c) Twelve Directors-at-Large,
(i) Who serve staggered two-year terms, and
(ii) At least one of whom is a representative of a small city with a population of 10,000 or less;
(d) One Director to be elected from each of the regional divisions, functional departments, and caucuses of Cal Cities, each of whom serves for a term of two years; and
(e) Ten Directors that may be designated by the mayors of each of the ten largest cities in California to serve two-year terms.
(f) For purposes of this section, the population of each city is the most current population as determined by the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, or its successor agency or unit. If no successor agency or unit is named, the most current population used to determine these dues shall be used to determine future dues until such time as these bylaws are amended to designate a new source for determining city population. (g) Directors hold office until their successors are elected and qualified. …
9 Section 5: Nomination Process.
(a) Timing. The Cal Cities President, with the concurrence of the Cal Cities Board, shall establish a nominating committee at the first Board meeting of the calendar year in which the election is to occur.
(b) Composition. The nominating committee shall be comprised of eleven thirteen Board membersDirectors. ThreeTwo nominating committee members shall be At-Large Directors, and one shall represent a functional department, and one shall represent a caucus. Regional divisions shall be represented on the nominating committee on the following rotating basis:
(i) Even-Numbered Years: In even-numbered years, the Central Valley, Imperial County, Monterey Bay, North Bay, Orange County, Redwood Empire, Sacramento Valley and San Diego County
Regional Divisions shall be represented on the nominating committee. (ii) Odd-Numbered Years: In odd-numbered years, the Channel Counties, Inland Empire, Desert-Mountain, East Bay, Los Angeles County, Peninsula, Riverside County, and South San Joaquin Regional Divisions shall be represented on the nominating committee. (c) Nominating Committee Chair. The Cal Cities President shall appoint the chair of the nominating committee.
(d) Candidates for Positions Ineligible. Candidates for officer and at-large positions on the Cal Cities Board are not eligible to serve on the nominating committee. In the event a regional division representative on the nominating committee wishes to be a candidate for an officer or at-large position, the Cal Cities President will appoint a substitute nominating committee member from the same regional division, if available. If one is not available, the President shall appoint a substitute from a nearby regional division. (e) Duties. The duties of the nominating committee are to:
(i) Member Outreach. Publicize the qualifications for the offices of Second Vice Vice-President/Treasurer and the at-large members of the Cal Cities Board to Cal Cities’ Member Cities;
(ii) At-Large and Second Vice-President Recommendations. Make recommendations to the Cal Cities Board on the following year’s Cal Cities officers and at-large board membersDirectors; and (iii) President and First Vice President Recommendation.

Recommend whether the previous year’s First Vice President 10 becomes President and the previous year’s Second VicePresident/Treasurer becomes First Vice President. (f) Notice to Members. An explanation of the nomination process and relevant deadlines for submitting nominations to the nominating committee shall be publicized in Cal Cities publications and communications throughout the year, along with the identity of nominating committee members once such members are appointed. In addition, the nominating committee shall inform the membership of the opening of the nominations for the following year when it makes its report to the general membership as provided in Article VI, Section 5(g) below.
(g) Decision and Report. The nominating committee’s recommendations shall be communicated to the Cal Cities Board not later than 30 days prior to the date of Cal Cities’ Annual Conference and again at the Annual Conference.

In addition, the nominating committee shall make its report to the membership at the opening general session of the Annual Conference. (h) Election. The election of Cal Cities Board officers and Directors-at-Large shall occur at a Cal Cities Board meeting at the Annual Conference as provided in Article VII, Section 4(c) and Article VII, section 3. …
Section 8: Meetings and Meeting Notice.
(a) Regularly Scheduled Board Meetings. The Cal Cities Board shall meet no fewer than four times a year. Notice of regularly scheduled Board meetings shall be mailed to each Director at least 14 days before any such meeting. (b) Emergency Board Meetings. A good faith effort shall be made to provide notice of any emergency board meetings (for example, by first-class mail, personal or telephone notification, including a voice messaging system or other system or technology designed to record and communicate messages, telegraph, facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic means). (c) Telephonic or Electronic Participation. Members of the Cal Cities Board may participate in any meeting through the use of conference telephone or similar communications equipment, so long as all members participating in such meeting can hear one another. Participation in a meeting by this means constitutes presence in person at such meeting.
(d) Notice Content. All meeting notices shall include the meeting date, place, time, and, as applicable, the means by which a Cal Cities Board memberDirector may participate electronically.
…
11 Section 10: Committees.
(a) General. The Cal Cities Board may establish committees to study city problems, advise on Cal Cities educational efforts, make recommendations with respect to Cal Cities advocacy efforts, or to engage in other appropriate Cal Cities service.
(b) Executive Committee.
(i) Composition. The Executive Committee of the Cal Cities Board consists of the following: the Cal Cities President, First VicePresident, Second Vice-President/Treasurer, Immediate Past President and Executive Director.
(ii) Authority. The Executive Committee has authority to act for the Cal Cities Board between Board meetings, provided that no action of the Executive Committee is binding on the Cal Cities Board unless authorized or approved by the Board.
(c) Standing Policy Committees.
(i) Charge. Cal Cities shall have a series of standing policy committees, whose charge shall be to make recommendations to the Cal Cities Board on matters within the committees’ jurisdiction, as well as fulfill other duties specified in these bylaws (see, for example, Article VI, section 4(b)).
(ii) Membership. Each Cal Cities Policy Committee shall be comprised of the following:
• Two members appointed by each regional division president; • One member appointed by each functional department president; • One member appointed by each caucus president;
• No more than 16 members appointed by the Cal Cities President, to provide population and geographic balance, as well as expertise; and
• Such representatives of affiliate organizations in the capacity authorized by the Cal Cities Board.
(iii) Feedback. Policy committees shall receive information on actions taken on committee recommendations and the reasons for those actions.
12 (d) Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs. Unless the Cal Cities Board establishes otherwise, Tthe Cal Cities President appoints the chair of all CalCities-wide committees. The term of such appointments coincides with the Cal Cities President’s term. The Cal Cities President may appoint vice chairs for such committees, as the Cal Cities President deems necessary. …
Article VIII: Officers
Section 1: Identity.

The officers of Cal Cities are a President, a First Vice-President, a Second VicePresident/Treasurer, an Immediate Past President, and an Executive Director.

Section 2: Duties of Cal Cities Officers.
(a) President. The President presides at all Cal Cities Board meetings and all General Assemblies. The President has such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by these bylaws or the Cal Cities Board. (b) First Vice-President. The First Vice-President carries on the duties of the President in the President’s temporary absence or incapacity. The First VicePresident has such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by these bylaws or the Cal Cities Board.
(c) Second Vice-President/Treasurer. The Second Vice-President/Treasurer carries on the duties of the President in the President’s and First VicePresident’s temporary absence or incapacity. The Second VicePresident/Treasurer has such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by these bylaws or the Cal Cities Board.
…
Section 4: Vacancies.

A vacancy in the office of President is filled by the Immediate Past President who shall serve for the unexpired term of office and, upon election of a new President at the next Annual Conference, shall subsequently serve a full term as Immediate Past President.

In the event the Immediate Past President is not available to fill the vacancy in the office of the President, or declines in writing, it shall be filled by the succession of the First Vice-President to that office. A vacancy in the office of First Vice-President, or Second Vice-President/Treasurer, is filled for the un-expired term by appointment by the Cal Cities Board of a member of the Cal Cities Board. A vacancy in the office of the Immediate Past President is filled for the un-expired term by the last Past President continuing to hold a city office.
…
13 Article XII: Voting
…
Section 5: Mail Balloting.

In addition to voting at Cal Cities meetings, Cal Cities may solicit member input by mail ballot.
(a) Mailing.10 The question(s) to be voted upon, along with explanatory materials and a ballot, shall be mailed by first class mail to each Member City for consideration and action.
(b) Time Frame for Action. Member Cities shall have at least 45 days to cast their vote. Ballots shall be cast by returning the Member City’s ballot to Cal Cities’ principal office in Sacramento.
(c) Ballot Tabulation and Results Announcement. The Cal Cities President will appoint a counting committee of three board membersDirectors to count the votes cast by mail ballot. The counting committee will submit its count to the Cal Cities Board, which shall canvass the vote and announce the results. (d) Functional Departments, Regional Divisions, and Caucuses.

Departments, divisions, and caucuses may also use mail balloting under procedures specified in their respective bylaws.
…
Article XV: Prohibited Transactions
…
Section 4: Ethical Considerations.

These restrictions, of course, represent the floor, not the ceiling, for ethical conduct as a Cal Cities board memberDirector or policy committee member. If a board memberDirector or policy committee member believes that there are circumstances under which Cal Cities’ members might reasonably question the board member’sDirector’s or policy committee member’s ability to act solely in the best interests of Cal Cities and its member cities, the prudent course is to abstain. As an example, typically Cal Cities board membersDirectors have abstained from participating in decisions on legislation that would affect organizations for which they work. Another example is legislation that would uniquely benefit a board member’sDirector’s city.

Policy committee members should also consider abstaining in similar circumstances. 10 The Administrative Services Committee recommends Cal Cities also include notice of the upcoming ballot in a variety of Cal Cities communications to alert Member Cities to make inquiry in the event a city’s ballot is lost in the mail. 14 City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-492, Version: 1
2nd reading, Ordinance Amendment to Article XVI of Chapter 20 (Vendor Ordinance) Adopt an Ordinance Amendment amending Article XVI of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code updating the regulations governing food trucks, ice cream trucks, nonmotorized pushcarts and street vendors (Vendor Ordinance).

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/31/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PE, PLS, PW DIRECTOR
BY: ADRIANA ROBLES, PE, CFM, CITY ENGINEER

FERNANDO RIZO-GONZALEZ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER

CYSTAL CASILLAS, BUSINESS NAVIGATOR

LORENZO SANCHEZ, CODE ENFORECEMENT MANAGER
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XVI OF
CHAPTER 20
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to adopt an Ordinance Amendment amending Article XVI of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code updating the regulations governing food trucks, ice cream trucks, nonmotorized pushcarts and street vendors (Vendor Ordinance).

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt Ordinance Amendment amending Article XVI of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code updating the regulations governing food trucks, ice cream trucks, nonmotorized pushcarts and street vendors (Vendor Ordinance).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This staff report is a supplement to the report provided for the August 23 rd meeting. Both reports
should be reviewed together for a complete overview, analysis and findings of the proposed Vendor Ordinance Amendments.

The staff reports propose amendments to Ordinance No. 2650 which was adopted by City Council on September 21, 2021. The Vendor Ordinance Amendments presented aim to address vendor concerns. The proposed amendments to the food truck vendor ordinance provisions were vetted with a majority of concurrence from current food vendors. The proposed Vendor Ordinance Amendments provide vendors a more comprehensive program tailored for the vendor business needs while ensuring community health and safety.

Page | 2
BACKGROUND:

This Second Reading of proposed Ordinance Amendments was continued from the August 23rd meeting. The continuation of the Second Reading of the proposed Ordinance Amendments has allowed staff time to respond to City Council and community stakeholder questions and concerns.

Additional outreach, research and analysis, and refinement of recommended amendments is outlined below in combination with the August 23rd staff report. Both reports should be reviewed together for a complete overview, analysis and findings of proposed Vendor Ordinance Amendments.

DISCUSSION:

Supplemental Information
Site Analysis and Findings
Based on the findings of the Food Truck survey, staff found sixteen (16) of the 47 vendors who participated in the survey were not satisfied with their vending location. Outside of the survey, staff identified a total of twenty (20) locations which required further analysis based on vendor complaints. The complete list of site-specific findings is attached hereto. The table below summarizes staff findings.

Table 1: Site Analysis of Unsatisfied Food Truck Vendors No. of Locations
Analyzed
Locations with
Parking Issues
Locations with
Sidewalk Issues
Locations with
Lighting Issues
Business
Operations Issues
20 6 1 5 15
The site analysis coincides with the findings of the survey. Based on this, the primary issue faced by vendors is related to business operations and business viability. Many of sites located near parks have little foot or vehicular traffic during their hours of operation. As indicated at the August 23rd Council meeting, staff will be working with each of the vendors individually to rectify or relocate them to more suitable locations. Table 2, below, identifies the proposed changes.

Table 2: Proposed Corrections of Problem Sites
No. of Locations
Analyzed
No Change to Vendor
or Location
Relocate Vendor/No
Change to Location
Change Designated
Location
20 2 12 6
Site analysis and observation of the use of designated locations has led staff to recommend requiring vendors to occupy their designated locations on a regular basis. At a number of locations, specifically parks, vendors were not observed operating on most occasions that staff visited the sites. As noted on the field visit log, some of the locations saw little foot traffic and greatly limited a vendor’s ability to conduct their business. Staff recommends updating the ordinance to allow roaming vendors to park adjacent to parks during park hours, while abiding to all other provisions and setbacks required by the ordinance. Doing this will allow staff to explore new locations for Page | 3
designated vendors.

In response to the above-mentioned problems with Designated Locations and following suggestions from Council at the August 23rd meeting, staff has revised the priorities and goals set for the food truck vendor program. As previously indicated, midterm goals may be achieved by reviewing and revising program policies and with coordination with the Traffic and Transportation Commission. Long term goals may require additional funding allocations and council action.

Table 3: Food Truck Vendor Program Priorities & Goals (Revised) Priority Designation Current Ordinance
Short-term Goals
(0-3 months)

1. Amend Vendor Ordinance to extend Roaming food
truck permit hours from 8AM to 8PM to 6AM to 10PM.

2. Amend Vendor Ordinance to allow Roaming food truck
vendors to vend 6 hours at a single location.

3. Amend Vendor Ordinance to require Designated food
truck locations to be occupied at least once a week for six consecutive hours.

4. Host seminars for business practices and procedures.

5. Amend Vendor Ordinance to allow relocation of some
park locations to accommodate vendors.

Midterm Goals
(6-12 months)

1. Relocate unsatisfied Designated vendors on a case by case based on site analysis conducted by staff and in
coordination with vendors.

2. Create temporary Roaming vendor permits for
Designated vendors to roam.

Long-term Goals
(+12 months)

1. Explore the creation of monthly vending hubs in City streets or on City owned properties.

2. Conduct a fee schedule analysis for vendor permits.

Pushcart/Street Vendor Setback
Following the August 23rd Council meeting, staff reached out to the Alisal Union School District to address concerns raised by Council members. The Superintendent was surprised that such concerns were raised and will be discussing further with the board. The Superintendent, as several principals whom staff had previously spoken to, is concerned with student safety when sidewalks are blocked by pushcarts and street vendors in the immediate vicinity of schools and supports the 200-foot setback recommended by staff.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, Page | 4
this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This staff report and recommendations align with the City Council strategic plan initiatives of Economic Development, Public Safety and Effective and Culturally Responsive Government.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION
Staff from the Public Works Department (Development Engineering Division) and the Community Development Department (Code Enforcement, Project Implementation and Economic Development Division) comprise the Vendor Program Task Force. The task force meets regularly and works continuously to address vendor issues.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

No additional funding is requested for the proposed ordinance amendments. The proposed changes are programmatic. Staff time is budgeted in each divisions home accounts.

ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance Amendment with Errata Sheet
Attachment 1: Problem Sites Field Visit Log
Attachment 2: Vendor Ordinance Amendment Staff Report (First Reading) Attachment 3: Article XVI, Chapter 20 Ordinance Amendment (First Reading) Attachment 4: Vendor Questionnaire
Attachment 5: Vendor Questionnaire Follow Up Meeting Presentation

ERRATA SHEET
Article XVI Vendor Ordinance Amendment – Second Reading The following additional modifications are proposed to the Article XVI Vendor Ordinance Amendment (revised) (strikethrough indicates text to be deleted and underline indicates text to be added):

Sec. 20-16.110. Nonmotorized pushcarts and vendors—Operating restrictions. (g) No nonmotorized pushcart or street vendor shall use or have any moveable or permanent table, chair, canopy, or any equipment within their vending area, except that they may have one stool for their own use and one two stand-alone umbrellas which shall each be no more than six feet in diameter and anchored by an umbrella stand.

Sec. 20-16.130. Food trucks—Operating restrictions.
(h) No owner or operator of a food truck may park or operate any food truck or sell, display or permit or authorize the sale, display or dispersal of any food, beverage or other product from any food truck within any public park or other recreation facility, except in designated locations and except in compliance with all other applicable provisions of this article and except as other specifically set forth in this subsection as follows:
(1) An owner or operator of a food that sells, offer for sale, displays, disperses, or permits, any food, food item or beverage from any food truck from a designated location adjacent to a public park may do so only between the hours of sunrise and sunset.

Except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any other person to operate any food truck in any such manner at any other time. (2) No owner or operator of a food truck selling in a designated location adjacent a public park shall use or operate a diesel- or gas-powered generator exceeding fifty-five decibels measured at a distance of five feet from the unit. (aa) Designated food truck locations shall be occupied. The owner of a food truck shall notify the City Engineer if a designated location will be left vacant for an extended period. Failure of a permittee to not occupy a designated location within a thirty (30) day period at least one time within a calendar week period (Saturday through Sunday) for at least six consecutive hours without prior notification to the City Engineer shall result in the revocation of the designated location and vendor permit.

ORDINANCE NO. (N.C.S.)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE XVI OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE SALINAS

MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATING THE REGULATIONS GOVERING FOOD

TRUCKS, ICE CREAM TRUCKS, NONMOTORIZED PUSHCARTS AND STREET

VENDORS
City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis
This Ordinance amends a section of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code to expand the program in response to concerns presented to City Council by food truck vendors.

WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the public right-of-way is for use by vehicle and pedestrian traffic;
WHEREAS, in 2021, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 2650 to amend article XVI of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code updating the regulations governing food trucks, ice cream trucks, nonmotorized pushcarts and street vendors; WHEREAS, Resolution No. 22198 approved by the Council established fifty-two (52) designated food truck locations on September 21, 2021; WHEREAS, conducting business on city streets from a food truck may have negative land use, public safety, and traffic impacts which the city desires to regulate; WHEREAS, nonmotorized pushcart or ice cream truck vendor operating and conducting business on the sidewalks or street shoulder in the vicinity of elementary, middle or high schools, or other K-12 schools or educational facilities may limit pedestrian access to safe walking paths and may also obstruct the views of approaching vehicles. Restricting nonmotorized pushcarts and ice cream truck vendors from operating within a two-hundred-foot distance will reduce the potential for such safety hazards;
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2022, the vendor task force conducted a follow-up meeting to provide a summarize findings from the vendor survey conducted in May 2022. This meeting provided the task force guidance in recommending improvements to the program; WHEREAS, it is recognized that operating a roaming food truck involves mobilization and de-mobilization at a chosen location which significantly reduces the hours of operation for a roaming vendor;
WHEREAS, the vendor ordinance does not regulate the use of designated locations; potentially allowing vendors to leave designated locations unutilized for extended periods which the city would like to prevent;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF SALINAS AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are bythisreference incorporated herein in their entirety.

SECTION 2. Article XVI of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (Revisions are shown in underline/strikethrough text):

Sec. 20-16.110. - Nonmotorized pushcarts and vendors—Operating restrictions. (i) No nonmotorized pushcart or street vendor shall operate withing two hundred feet of any elementary, middle or high school, or other K-12 school or educational facility, whether public or private. The two-hundred-foot distance shall be measured from the property line of the school closest to the pushcart.

Sec. 20-16-120. – Ice cream trucks – Operating restrictions. (l) Ice cream truck owner or operator shall operate withing two hundred feet of any elementary, middle or high school, or other K-12 school or educational facility, whether public or private.

Sec. 20-16.130. Food trucks—Operating restrictions.
(d) An owner or operator of a food truck that sells, offer for sale, displays, disperses, or permits, any food, food item or beverage from any food truck not from a designated location may do so only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. for a period not to exceed four six hours at a single location and not within five hundred feet of the same address or location or on the same street. Except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate any food truck in any such manner at any other time.
(aa) Designated food truck locations shall be occupied. The owner of a food truck shall notify the City Engineer if a designated location will be left vacant for an extended period. Failure to not occupy a designated location within a thirty (30) day period without notification shall result in the revocation of the designated location and vendor permit.

SECTION 3. CEQA CONSIDERATIONS. The amendment is “Not a Project” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). This exemption is allowed when the activity, in this case adoption of the ordinance, does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Ordinance Amendment includes refinements to vendor operation restrictions in the public right-of-way.

SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The Salinas City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, clause and phrase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23th day of August 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT: APPROVED:
_________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 23, 2022
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PE, PLS, DIRECTOR

MEGAN HUNTER, DIRECTOR
THROUGH: ADRIANA ROBLES, PE, CFM, CITY ENGINEER

LISA BRINTON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
BY: FERNANDO RIZO-GONZALEZ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER

OSCAR RESENDIZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

CYSTAL CASILLAS, BUSINESS NAVIGATOR

LORENZO SANCHEZ, CODE ENFORECEMENT MANAGER

ALEXIS MEJIA, ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
TITLE: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XVI OF CHAPTER 20 RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to adopt an Ordinance amending Article XVI of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code to update the regulations governing food trucks, ice cream trucks, nonmotorized pushcarts and street vendors (Vendor Ordinance).

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Article XVI of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code to update the regulations governing food trucks, ice cream trucks, nonmotorized pushcarts and street vendors (Vendor Ordinance).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On September 21, 2021 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2650 amending the Vendor Ordinance which became effective on October 21, 2021. The proposed ordinance presented in this Report includes amendments to address vendor concerns brought forward to City Council during the vendor program update on April 12, 2022. Proposed changes have been vetted with a majority of current food vendors. The proposed Vendor Ordinance Amendments provide vendors a more comprehensive program tailored for vendor business needs while ensuring community health and safety.

Page | 2
Amendments include:
1) expanding the hours of operation for roaming food trucks from four (4) to six (6) hours to allow them additional time for set up and break down so that they can maximize their business operation,
2) restricting nonmotorized pushcarts and ice cream truck vendors from operating within a twohundred-foot distance from schools to reduce the potential for pedestrian safety hazards, and 3) establishing the frequency of occupation for designated food truck locations and the revocation process if a designated space is not occupied according to regulations.

BACKGROUND:

During the April 12, 2022 City Council meeting vendor program update, staff was instructed to revisit the program to alleviate some of issues vendors had expressed regarding the program. To support this effort, staff conducted additional outreach with community stakeholders and vendors.

Following an additional survey of vendors, a meeting was conducted on June 23, 2022 at the PAL building where all Designated and Roaming food truck vendors were invited and were presented with staff’s recommended ordinance amendments. Vendors were given the opportunity to pose questions and concerns on the recommended amendments and to vote on their preferred amendments.

In conjunction, staff presented the recommended ordinance amendments to the Small Business Economic and Recovery Taskforce at their quarterly meeting held on August 04, 2022. Based on this outreach, refinement of recommended amendments has been completed and are outlined in this report.

DISCUSSION:

Additional Survey and Findings
In response to City Council direction, staff conducted a survey open to both Designated and Roaming food truck vendors. The survey was conducted in both Spanish and English by the Vendor Program Task Force comprised of City staff from Development Engineering, Code Enforcement, Project Implementation and Economic Development Division. In addition, City staff actively performed site visits at food truck vending locations and conducted phone calls to collect and increase the number of survey responses. A total of 47 vendors were surveyed including seven (7) Roaming and 40 Designated food truck vendors. The survey was composed of five (5) open ended questions with common vendor responses/findings summarized in Table 1 below. Survey questions and responses are also provided as an attachment to this report.

Table 1: Food Truck Vendor Survey Results
Question Common Responses/Findings

1. What would you change about the
Vendor Ordinance to best suit your
business needs?
 16 - vendors were not satisfied with their
assigned vending locations.
 18 - vendors were satisfied with the ordinance
and would not recommend any changes.
 5 - vendors requested more frequent vendor
enforcement.

Page | 3

2. What hours of operation work best
for your business and why?
 35 - designated vendors responded that
current vending hours worked for their
business.
 5 – designated vendors would like to extend
hours of operation, specifically designated
vendors adjacent a city park.
 6 - roaming vendors requested expansion of
hours of operation
 1 - roaming vendor was satisfied with current
hours of operation

3. What are your thoughts on your
current vending location(s)? Do you
have suggestions on how to improve
the benefits of that location?
 16 - designated vendors were not satisfied
with their vending locations and would like to
be relocated. Spots were described as
“secluded”, “not visible”, and complained
about having very low foot traffic.
 24 - designated vendors were satisfied with
their assigned vending locations.
 9 - designated vendors complained about the
conditions of sidewalk.
 5 - designated vendors had problems with the
homeless population affecting their business.
 6 - designated vendors complained about
limited parking for costumers.

4. What additional improvement
recommendations do you have on the
Vendor Program?
 5 - vendors would like to see more frequent
vendor enforcement and homeless outreach
services.
 4 - vendors would like the CUP process to be
more lenient and more affordable

5. Do you have any additional concerns
you would like to inform us of?
 5 - vendors requested additional resources for
business growth including social media
promotion, creation of google business profile
and possible creation of a vending hub similar
to farmers markets.
 6 - vendors expressed concerns over the
vendor program enforcement and would more
frequent vendor enforcement during the night.

Program Goals Prioritization and Additional Outreach
Following review of the survey findings, the Vendor Program task force developed short-term, midterm and long-term goals based on the vendor responses summarized above. Table 2 below shows the goals identified and their prioritization. These goals and prioritization were presented to both Roaming and Designated vendors at a food truck vendor meeting hosted by City staff at the PAL building on June 23, 2022. At this meeting vendors were giving the opportunity to vote on staff recommended food truck vendor program policy changes and proposed ordinance amendments.

Table 2 shows staff recommended program policy changes and ordinance amendments that were accepted by most of the vendors present at the meeting. A total of twenty (20) food truck vendors Page | 4
attended the meeting and the average acceptance to the City staff recommendations was eighty percent (80%).

Table 2: Food Truck Vendor Program Priorities & Goals
Priority Designation Current Ordinance
Short-term Goals

1. Amend Vendor Ordinance to extend Roaming food
truck permit hours from 8AM to 8PM to 6AM to 10PM.

2. Amend Vendor Ordinance to allow Roaming food truck
vendors to vend 6 hours at a single location.

3. Amend Vendor Ordinance to require Designated food
truck locations to be occupied at least once within 30
days.

4. Host seminars for business practices and procedures.

Midterm Goals

1. Relocate unsatisfied Designated vendors on a case by case based on site analysis conducted by staff and in
coordination with vendors.

2. Create temporary Roaming vendor permits for
Designated vendors to roam.

Long-term Goals

1. Explore the creation of monthly vending hubs in City streets or on City owned properties.

2. Conduct a fee schedule analysis for vendor permits.

Short-term goals are being addressed with this report and proposed ordinance amendments. The Vendor Program task force has developed a time frame for possible completion on action items not addressed in this report and identified in Table 2. (Midterm and Long-term goals). Midterm goals have been given a time frame of completion of 6-12 months, while Long-term goals have been given one (1) year or more. Furthermore, goals identified as Midterm goals do not require further City Council approval or additional program funding allocation. Midterm goals can be achieved via changes in vendor permitting policies and if necessary, coordination with the City’s Traffic and Transportation Commission. Long-term goals may require City Council approval and additional funding allocation.

Following the April 12, 2022 City Council meeting staff received calls from several school principals concerned about the safety of their students. Vending in these areas has created hazardous conditions for students while crossing streets and congregating near high traffic intersections. Code Enforcement has begun working with schools on possible solutions to their concerns. In an effort to reduce the traffic conflicts at schools, staff is also recommending a two hundred (200) foot setback for nonmotorized pushcarts, street vendors and ice cream trucks near schools.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

Page | 5
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This staff report and recommended ordinance amendments align with the City Council strategic plan initiatives of Economic Development, Public Safety and Effective and Culturally Responsive Government. Expanding the hours of operation for Roaming food trucks allows them to maximize their business operation. Restricting nonmotorized pushcarts and street vendors and ice cream trucks from operating within a two-hundred-foot distance will reduce the potential for pedestrian safety hazards with block sidewalks and limited visibility at street crossings. The proposed amendments and mid- and long-term goals were developed with vendor input obtained through surveys and in person meetings.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION
Staff from the Public Works Department (Development Engineering Division) and the Community Development Department (Code Enforcement, Project Implementation and Economic Development Division) comprise the Vendor Program task force. The task force meets regularly and continues to work on addressing vendor issues.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

No additional funding is requested for the proposed ordinance amendments. The proposed changes are programmatic. Staff time is budgeted in each divisions home accounts.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance Amendment

2. Vendor Questionnaire

3. Vendor Questionnaire Follow Up Meeting Presentation
ORDINANCE NO. (N.C.S.)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE XVI OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE SALINAS

MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATING THE REGULATIONS GOVERING FOOD

TRUCKS, ICE CREAM TRUCKS, NONMOTORIZED PUSHCARTS AND STREET

VENDORS
City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis
This Ordinance amends a section of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code to expand the program in response to concerns presented to City Council by food truck vendors.

WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the public right-of-way is for use by vehicle and pedestrian traffic;
WHEREAS, in 2021, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 2650 to amend article XVI of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code updating the regulations governing food trucks, ice cream trucks, nonmotorized pushcarts and street vendors; WHEREAS, Resolution No. 22198 approved by the Council established fifty-two (52) designated food truck locations on September 21, 2021; WHEREAS, conducting business on city streets from a food truck may have negative land use, public safety, and traffic impacts which the city desires to regulate; WHEREAS, nonmotorized pushcart or ice cream truck vendor operating and conducting business on the sidewalks or street shoulder in the vicinity of elementary, middle or high schools, or other K-12 schools or educational facilities may limit pedestrian access to safe walking paths and may also obstruct the views of approaching vehicles. Restricting nonmotorized pushcarts and ice cream truck vendors from operating within a two-hundred-foot distance will reduce the potential for such safety hazards;
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2022, the vendor task force conducted a follow-up meeting to provide a summarize findings from the vendor survey conducted in May 2022. This meeting provided the task force guidance in recommending improvements to the program; WHEREAS, it is recognized that operating a roaming food truck involves mobilization and de-mobilization at a chosen location which significantly reduces the hours of operation for a roaming vendor;
WHEREAS, the vendor ordinance does not regulate the use of designated locations; potentially allowing vendors to leave designated locations unutilized for extended periods which the city would like to prevent;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF SALINAS AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are bythisreference incorporated herein in their entirety.

SECTION 2. Article XVI of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (Revisions are shown in underline/strikethrough text):

Sec. 20-16.110. - Nonmotorized pushcarts and vendors—Operating restrictions. (i) No nonmotorized pushcart or street vendor shall operate withing two hundred feet of any elementary, middle or high school, or other K-12 school or educational facility, whether public or private. The two-hundred-foot distance shall be measured from the property line of the school closest to the pushcart.

Sec. 20-16-120. – Ice cream trucks – Operating restrictions. (l) Ice cream truck owner or operator shall operate withing two hundred feet of any elementary, middle or high school, or other K-12 school or educational facility, whether public or private.

Sec. 20-16.130. Food trucks—Operating restrictions.
(d) An owner or operator of a food truck that sells, offer for sale, displays, disperses, or permits, any food, food item or beverage from any food truck not from a designated location may do so only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. for a period not to exceed four six hours at a single location and not within five hundred feet of the same address or location or on the same street. Except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate any food truck in any such manner at any other time.
(aa) Designated food truck locations shall be occupied. The owner of a food truck shall notify the City Engineer if a designated location will be left vacant for an extended period. Failure to not occupy a designated location within a thirty (30) day period without notification shall result in the revocation of the designated location and vendor permit.

SECTION 3. CEQA CONSIDERATIONS. The amendment is “Not a Project” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). This exemption is allowed when the activity, in this case adoption of the ordinance, does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Ordinance Amendment includes refinements to vendor operation restrictions in the public right-of-way.

SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The Salinas City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, clause and phrase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23th day of August 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT: APPROVED:
_________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
Vendor Questionnaire

1. What would you change with the Vendor Ordinance to best suit your business needs? / ¿Qué cambiaría de la Ordenanza de Vendores Ambulantes para adaptarse mejor a las necesidades de su negocio?

2. What hours of operation work best for your business and why? / ¿Qué horario funcionaria mejor para su negocio y porqué?

3. What are your thoughts on your current vending location(s)? Do you have suggestions on how to improve the benefits of that location? / ¿Qué opina sobre su ubicacion de venta actual? ¿Tiene alguna sugerencia en cómo mejorar los beneficios de su ubicacion?

4. What additional improvement recommendations do you have on the Vendor Program? / ¿Qué recomendaciones adicionales tiene para mejorar el Programa de Vendedores Ambulates?

5. Do you have any additional concerns you would like to inform us of? / ¿Tiene algún comentario adicional del cual le gustaría informarnos?
 


 

 








 



 !"










 


 







 









 








 

 

!"#
! 



! 



 

$
 %





$&

'

(

!



$(




  

 


&!
$


)*!



 +


"




 



 ,




"

!#


! 

-
 

 



$!

!

$















 






 

!

"























!"


 "


 

! 
#

"




















 
!
"


#
$
%&
'





  

  


 
 


 



 
 







 









 

 









!
 




 " 

 
"# $
  





 



  

  





   %
 

 &




  

'

(
 )

*
+




 )&

 


 
 

,
 -

 


  


  
+ 

  
.
 %












 

!
 
/"
 

 

 
 
  
 %

 &






 


 

'

(

 )

 

+ 
  


 )&
&%

 



 


0




1

,
2 -



 3


























  




 
 





 










 







 





 
 
  






!"
#$!%
&"$%' !

(  
!
)! 
! 

*+ ,



 -.
 !


!
 /








0
- 



!

1
-. !
- 


!0


 
 
!

*+





 

 



  








! "
 









Municipal Code Amendments

AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
TO ARTICLE XVI OF CHAPTER 20
AUGUST 23, 2022

ADRIANA ROBLES, CITY ENGINEER

FERNANDO RIZO-GONZALEZ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER

OSCAR RESENDIZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

CRYSTAL CASILLAS, BUSINESS NAVIGATOR

LORENZO SANCHEZ, CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER
Vendor Program Timeline
Council Approval
Vendor Ordinance Amendment
September 21, 2021
Ordinance Effective
October 22, 2021
Vendor Program Update
Report to Council
April 12, 2022
Outreach
& Vendor Meeting
June 1, 2022 -
June 23, 2022
Vendor Ordinance Amendment
Council Meeting
August 23, 2022
Outreach and Vendor Meeting Findings
74%
26%

PARTICIPATION
Responded to the survey
No response
58% 18%
24%

CONCURRENCE
Agreed with the changes
Did not agree
Did not participate or no show
61 ACTIVE PERMITS
Issued Permits
Short-term Goals (0-3 Months)
• Amend Vendor Ordinance
• Extend Roaming food truck permit hours from 8AM to 8PM to 6AM to 10PM. • Allow Roaming food truck vendors to vend from 4 hours to 6 hours at a single location.
• Require Designated food truck locations to be occupied weekly. • Add a 200-foot setback requirement for nonmotorized pushcarts and street vendors near schools.
• Host seminars for business practices and procedures.

Ordinance Update
Next Steps
Mid-term Goals (6-12 Months)
 Relocate Designated food truck vendors on a case by case based on site analysis conducted by staff and in coordination with vendors.
 Create temporary Roaming vendor permits for Designated vendors to roam.

Long-term Goals (+12 Months)
 Explore the creation of vending hubs on City streets or on City-owned properties.  Conduct a fee schedule analysis for vendor permits.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Ordinance Amendment amending Article XVI of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code updating the regulations governing food trucks, ice cream trucks, nonmotorized pushcarts and street vendors (Vendor Ordinance).

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-493, Version: 1
FY 22-23 Workforce Allocation Adjustment and Modification to the Classification - Salary Schedule Approve a Resolution adjusting the workforce allocation for the Community Development Department and authorize a modification to the Classification - Salary Schedule.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/31/2022
powered by Legistar™

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
_________________________________________________________________________________ DATE: September 6, 2022
Department: HUMAN RESOURCES
FROM: Marina Horta-Gallegos, Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: FY 22-23 WORKFORCE ALLOCATION ADJUSTMENT AND
MODIFICATION TO THE CLASSIFICATION – SALARY SCHEDULE
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution adjusting the workforce allocation for the Community Development Department and authorize a modification to the Classification – Salary Schedule.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution adjusting the workforce for the Community Development Department and authorize a modification to the Classification – Salary Schedule.

BACKGROUND:

The Community Development Department requests an adjustment to the FY 22-23 workforce to include three additional positions for the Housing Division. Two Community Outreach Assistants and one Community Development Analyst will be grant funded (limited term) and support the Housing Division in addressing encampments and family homelessness. Additionally, the Community Development Department is requesting authorization to replace the vacant Administrative Aide position with an Administrative Analyst and to replace the vacant Senior Economic Development Manager with a Planning Manager.

The Public Works Department was approved for one Stormwater Technician during the FY 21-22 midyear budget process. Staff recommend retitling the classification to Stormwater Analyst and adding the classification to the Classification – Salary Schedule.

Benefit
Group Grade Position
Step 1
Hourly
Step 1
Monthly
Step 2
Hourly
Step 2
Monthly
Step 3
Hourly
Step 3
Monthly
Step 4
Hourly
Step 4
Monthly
Step 5
Hourly
Step 5
Monthly
Step 6
Hourly
Step 6
Monthly
26 Stormwater Analyst 29.6059 5,132 31.0856 5,388 32.6426 5,658 34.2710 5,940 35.9897 6,238 37.7926 6,551 CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (SEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The proposed action meets the Effective and Culturally Responsive Government Council goal.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Human Resources Department coordinated this effort with the Community Development and Public Works Departments.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Grant funding will be used to fund the three limited term positions in the Community Development Department. The difference in salary between the Administrative Aide and Administrative Analyst is approximately $10,416 in base salary and will be covered through salary savings and the Community Development enterprise fund. Replacing the Senior Economic Development Manager with a Planning Manager will provide for salary savings of approximately $7,000.

There is no fiscal impact associated with the retitling of the Public Works Stormwater Technician to Stormwater Analyst.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. _________ (N.C.S.)
RESOLUTION APPROVING FY 22-23 WORKFORCE ALLOCATION ADJUSTMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALINAS that the workforce for the Community Development reflect the addition of the following positions: two Community Outreach Assistants (limited term); one Community Development Analyst (limited term). An Administrative Analyst will replace the vacant Administrative Aide and a Planning Manager will replace the vacant Senior Economic Development Manager. The Stormwater Technician will be retitled Stormwater Analyst.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 6th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
____________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Patricia Barajas, City Clerk
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-495, Version: 1
a. Pending Litigation - California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with legal counsel regarding, Santa Rita Union High School District, et al. v. City of Salinas et al., Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV000242.
b. Pending Litigation - California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with legal counsel regarding, Alisal Union School District, et al. v. City of Salinas, et al., Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV00340.
c. Real Property Negotiations - California Government Code Section 54956.8, conference with real property negotiators City Manager Steven S. Carrigan, City Attorney Christopher A. Callihan, Community Development Director Megan Hunter, Assistant Community Development Director Lisa Brinton, and Dan Massolo (Massolo Brothers Company) to discuss the terms and sale of real property located at 1 Preston Street, Salinas, California, 93901, APN 003161008000.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/31/2022
powered by Legistar™