Agenda Packet — Salinas City Council, October 4, 2022 (part 1 of 4)

Tuesday, October 4, 2022
4:00 PM
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas, CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org

SALINAS ROTUNDA
City Council
Mayor Kimbley Craig
Councilmembers:

Carla Viviana González, District 1 - Tony Barrera, District 2 Steve McShane, District 3 - Orlando Osornio, District 4 Christie Cromeenes, District 5 - Anthony Rocha, District 6 Steven S. Carrigan, City Manager
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
City Clerk’s Office: (831) 758-7381
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 4, 2022

PUBLIC NOTICE
This meeting is being conducted consistent with State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The public may view the meeting on television and/or online and may participate in-person in the Council Chamber.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

PROCLAMATION
Salinas Police Department 150th Anniversary
Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week
Fire Prevention Week

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES
If you wish to make a general public comment or comment on a specific agenda item, you are encouraged to attended the City Council meeting in person. Public comment may also be submitted via email at [email protected] and will be entered into the record.

PUBLIC COMMENT TIME RESTRICTIONS
Public comments generally are limited to two minutes per speaker; the Mayor may further limit the time for public comments depending on the agenda schedule.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
Receive public communications on items that are not on the agenda and that are in the City of Salinas’ subject matter jurisdiction. Comments on Consent, Consideration, and Closed session items should be held until the items are reached. The public may request that the legislative body consider adding an item for consideration on a future agenda. The public may comment on scheduled agenda items, including closed session items, as they are considered.

PRESENTATION
Councilmember comments on presentations are generally limited to three minutes.

California Welcome Center

PUBLIC HEARINGS
ID#22-536 Home Investment Partnership American Rescue Plan Allocation Plan Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving the proposed HOME Investment Partnership Program - American Rescue Plan Allocation Plan and authorize its submittal to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for final approval.

City of Salinas Page 2 Printed on 9/29/2022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 4, 2022

CONSIDERATION
ID#22-529 Developer Selection for 855 E. Laurel Drive Request for Qualifications for the Design and Development of a Proposed 100% Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing Project
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution jointly selecting, with the County of Monterey, Eden Housing Inc. as the developer for the 855 E. Laurel Drive Request for Qualifications for the design and development of a proposed 100% Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing Project.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
ID#22-526 Alisal Street Complete Streets Before and After Study Recommendation: No action. This report presents information to the City Council regarding the Alisal Street Complete Streets before and after study.

CONSENT AGENDA
All matters listed under Consent Agenda may be enacted by one motion unless a member of the Council or the public requests discussion or a separate vote.

ID#22-549 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve minutes of September 6, 2022, September 13, 2022, and September 20, 2022.

ID#22-518 Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) Bus Stops Red Zones Recommendation: Approve a Resolution establishing a total of approximately 140 feet of bus stop red zones along Van Buren Avenue south of Russell Road and Van Buren Avenue north of Eisenhower Street.

ID#22-519 No Parking Bike Lanes on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving the No Parking Bike Lanes Plan on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway.

ID#22-520 S. Filice Street Job Order Contract (JOC) Sidewalk Repairs; COS-2022-9720-01 Job Order Completed Under the On-Call JOC for Sidewalk Improvements; CIP 9720
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution to accept the S. Filice Street JOC Sidewalk Repairs; COS-2022-9720-01 under CIP 9720, On-Call Job Order Contract for Sidewalk Improvements, for maintenance and responsibility.

ID#22-527 Advanced Planning and Current Planning Services On-Call List Recommendation: Approve a Resolution establishing the Advanced Planning and Current Planning Services On-Call List for a three-year period.

ID#22-528 FEMA FY 2021 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Award Acceptance City of Salinas Page 3 Printed on 9/29/2022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 4, 2022
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to accept the FY 2021 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) in the amount of $29,225.37, for the procurement of 5 QRAE3 gas exposure monitors, and to appropriate $2,922.54 (10%) of required matching funds and execute all required agreements and related documents necessary to receive the funds.

ID#22-532 Amended Professional Service Agreement with Wallace Group for Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to make amendments to and restatement of a professional service agreement with Wallace Group for the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update.

ID#22-535 ARPA/PRK Motel Program Master Lease with Marina Hotels Ci, LLC and Agreement for Services with Benitez Security Services, Inc.

Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Master Lease Agreement with Marina Hotels Ci, LLC and execute an Agreement for Services with Benitez Security Services, Inc related to the City's Project Roomkey Program.

ID#22-537 Ratify and Amend Emergency Agreements with Environmental Systems, Inc.

Recommendation: Approve a Resolution ratifying (3) and amending (2) Emergency Agreements with Environmental Systems Inc. (ESI) for the replacement and repair of 2 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems and 1 Heating System.

ID#22-538 Side Letter Agreement with SEIU LOCAL 521 Blue Collar Unit Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the City manager to execute and implement a Side Letter Agreement with Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 521 Blue Collar.

COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS, APPOINTMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Receive communication from Councilmembers on reports, appointments and future agenda items. Councilmember comments are generally limited to three minutes.

CLOSED SESSION
Receive public communications from the audience on Closed session items.

The City Council will recess to closed session pursuant to:

ID#22-550 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, and Assistant Community Development Director Lisa Brinton, to discuss the terms and sale of real properties located at 219 Salinas Street (APN City of Salinas Page 4 Printed on 9/29/2022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 4, 2022
002242029000, Parking Lot 1); 210 Salinas Street (APN TNPAPN 000142, Parking Lot 8); 122 Lincoln Avenue (APN 002245008000, Parking Lot 12), 128 Lincoln Avenue (APN 002245007000, Parking Lot 12), 118 Lincoln Avenue (APN 002245005000, Parking Lot 12), 120 Lincoln Avenue (APN 0022458006000, Parking Lot 12), 112 Lincoln Avenue (APN 002245004000, Parking Lot 12).
d. Performance Evaluation and Labor - California Government Code §54957 and §54957.6, public employee performance evaluation and labor relations with unrepresented employee (City Manager).
e. Performance Evaluation and Labor - California Government Code §54957 and §54957.6, public employee performance evaluation and labor relations with unrepresented employee (City Attorney).

ADJOURNMENT
_____________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

AGENDA MATERIAL / ADDENDUM
Any addendums will be posted within 72 hours of regular meetings or 24 hours of special meetings and in accordance with Californian Government Code Section 54954.2, unless otherwise allowed under the Brown Act. City Council agenda item reports may be viewed at the Salinas City Clerk’s Office, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, and are posted on the City’s website at www.cityofsalinas.org via the hyperlinks provided on the agenda. The City Council may take action that is different than the proposed action reflected on the agenda.

Disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, may be requested by any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting. Requests should be referred to the City Clerk’s Office At 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, 758-7381, as soon as possible but by no later than 5 p.m. of the last business day prior to the meeting. Hearing impaired or TTY/TDD text telephone users may contact the city by dialing 711 for the California Relay Service (CRS) or by telephoning any other service providers’ CRS telephone number.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
This agenda was posted on Thursday, September 29, 2022 at the City Clerk’s Office, in the Council Rotunda, and the City's website.

Meetings are streamed live at https://salinas.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx and televised live on Channel 25 at 4 p.m. on the date of the regularly scheduled meeting and will be broadcast throughout the day on the Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Monday following the meeting. For the most up-to-the-minute Broadcast Schedule for The Salinas Channel on Comcast 25, please visit or subscribe to our Google Calendar located at http://tinyurl.com/salinas25. Recent City Council meetings may also be viewed on the Salinas Channel on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/thesalinaschannel.

City of Salinas Page 5 Printed on 9/29/2022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 4, 2022
City of Salinas Page 6 Printed on 9/29/2022
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-536, Version: 1
Home Investment Partnership American Rescue Plan Allocation Plan Approve a Resolution approving the proposed HOME Investment Partnership Program - American Rescue Plan Allocation Plan and authorize its submittal to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for final approval.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/28/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2022
FROM: MEGAN HUNTER, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

THROUGH ROD POWELL, PLANNING MANAGER
PREPARED BY: HILDA PERALTA, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST TITLE: HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP AMERICAN RESCUE

PLAN ALLOCATION PLAN
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution to approve the proposed HOME Investment Partnership Program – American Rescue Plan Allocation Plan and authorize its submittal to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for final approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Community Development Department recommends that City Council conduct a public hearing to consider and approve a Resolution to approve the proposed HOME Investment Partnership Program – American Rescue Plan Allocation Plan and authorize its submittal to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for final approval.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In Fiscal Year 2021, the City of Salinas (City), as a HUD entitlement jurisdiction, was allocated $2,918,774 of one-time HOME American Recovery Plan (HOME-ARP) funding from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, this funding is specifically earmarked to perform four key activities: production and preservation of affordable housing, tenant-based rental assistance, provision of supportive services such as homeless prevention and housing counseling; and acquisition and development of noncongregate shelter.

As described in HUD Notice CPD-21-10: Requirements of the Use of Funds in the HOMEAmerican Rescue Plan Program, HOME ARP funds are designated to assist four defined qualifying populations including those who are homeless, those currently housed and at risk of homelessness, those fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking or human trafficking populations, and those at greatest risk of housing instability and where providing support services or assistance would prevent homelessness.

Page | 2
BACKGROUND:

In order to receive a HOME-ARP allocation, jurisdictions are required to develop an Allocation Plan (AP) derived from solicited community engagement with and input from community service providers, stakeholders, and the general public. In accordance with HOME-ARP requirements, development of the AP must include a consultation process, a needs assessment, and gap analysis, each of which serves to provide a qualified summary of the City’s planned use of funds and an estimate of housing units produced or created.

DISCUSSION:

Consultation, Assessment, and Gap Analysis
As part of its lengthy, required AP consultation process, City staff diligently connected, engaged, and consulted with the local CA-506 Continuum of Care (CoC); homeless, social services, and domestic violence service providers; veterans’ groups; public housing agencies; individuals defined as members of each qualifying population; agencies that address fair housing, civil rights, and the needs of persons with disabilities; other community stakeholders; and members of the general public. To achieve the robust response necessary to formulate a compliant and considerate AP, staff utilized various methods to gather information and targeted engagement opportunities to inform the community and request input. This included targeted participation in community and regional partnership meetings, email blasts, social media announcements, online surveys, and website postings. The consultation revealed strong support for permanent supportive housing and supportive service activities like case management, housing counseling, substance abuse treatment, and financial assistance for housing related costs.

Opportunities for public participation to comment on the planning, development, and review of the proposed allocation plan were publicized and disseminated in accordance with the City’s Citizen Participation Plan (CPP). Public participation during the development of the allocation plan included a 30-day public comment period, community meetings, an electronic survey, newspaper ads, social media announcements, and one public hearing. Permanent supportive housing through the rehabilitation of motels or hotels was scored as the highest priority based on the survey results. Supportive service activities with the highest score were mental health and substance abuse treatment, transportation, and financial assistance for housing related costs. A detailed breakdown of the comments and recommendations received through the public participation process were included as part of the allocation plan.

The City’s AP needs assessment and gap analysis also evaluated the size and demographic composition of each HOME-ARP qualifying population to determine their unmet needs. Data from the 2022 Monterey County Homeless Point-In-Time Count, 2020 American Community Survey, 2021 Continuum of Care Housing Inventory Count, and the 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability report were used to determine the unmet needs of qualifying populations. This included a determination that the City currently has 14 projects with bed inventory (8 emergency shelter, 2 rapid rehousing, 3 transitional housing, and 1 permanent supportive housing) resulting in a total capacity of 501 beds. Based on the available data, the City has a significant gap in beds needed for adult households without children.

Determination of Community Need
Locally, the CoC is coordinated by the Coalition of Homeless Services Providers (CHSP) in partnership with the City of Salinas. In 2009, the CoC developed an initial Lead Me Home Plan (LMHP), to serve as a framework to guide local jurisdictions (Counties and cities), service Page | 3
providers, and other key stakeholders in maximizing available resources in an effort to strategically impact and reduce homelessness. The most recent update to the LMHP includes a data-focused, milestone-based action plan which establishes measurable goals and targets focused on reducing local homelessness by 50% over the next five years (July 2021 through June 2026). This plan sets out to align available funding to support the activities identified in each year of the action plan and includes an essential year-one activity of continued investment in acquisition and conversion of motels to affordable, supportive Homekey housing units available through the State of California.

Additional LMHP goals include the need for increased investment in housing navigation services and housing focused case management. These collaborative efforts are highlighted in the City’s AP as it serves an important regional framework with specific target goals.

Additionally, input obtained from local service providers during the City’s AP consultation process revealed a strong need and preference to support outreach, mental health services, case management, housing and financial counseling, and financial assistance. Each of which is addressed within the permanent supportive nature of the Homekey model.

The City of Salinas, in partnership with Shangri La Industries and Step Up on Second Street, Inc., has acquired three Homekey sites to provide a total of 202 new permanent supportive housing units. Each site will offer its residents permanent, affordable housing coupled with supportive services including case management, employment assistance, referrals to mental health services, peer support training, and transportation services. Annual costs to provide this necessary supportive housing environment is just under $6,000 per unit per year.

Recommended Plan Allocation
HOME-ARP funding must be spent by 2030. In consideration of the information and data gathered and assessed during the AP development process staff are recommending that 15% of the City’s HOME-ARP allocation ($437,816.10) be used for allowable program administration and planning activities and that the allocation’s remaining 85% ($2,480,957.90), be directed toward much needed supportive service funding associated with the City’s three Homekey permanent supportive housing sites and other “bed” generating projects. It is estimated that up to ninety-nine (99) Salinas Homekey units for qualifying populations could be supported with the recommended HOME-ARP allocation.

This recommendation is strongly supported by the robust input provided by local service providers during Based on the need and gap analysis and the desire to serve all qualifying populations and subpopulations, the City will not exercise the allowable identification and use of a service preference for funded program activities.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The City of Salinas has determined that authorizing the submittal of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan to HUD is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378 as this matter does not cause a direct or indirect physical change on the environment. Subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability. Activities utilizing federal funds are also subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will be evaluated prior to expending any funds.

Page | 4
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The HOME-ARP Program is intended to assist qualifying populations with permanent housing options and supportive services. Acceptance of the AP supports City of Salinas 2022-2025 Strategic Plan Strategies and Goals of Housing/Affordable Housing and Effective and Culturally Responsive Government.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The HOME-ARP Allocation Plan is solely administered by the City’s Housing & Community Development Division. Staff will coordinate with the City’s Finance and Legal Departments to ensure regulatory compliance and full disbursement of funds.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

It is estimated that the City is eligible to receive a total allocation of $2,918,774 in HOME-ARP funds from HUD once the Allocation Plan is approved. Approval and submission of the HOMEARP AP has no impact to the City’s General Fund.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. HOME-ARP Allocation Plan – Draft
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL

APPROVING ITS HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM-AMERICAN RESCUE

PLAN ALLOCATION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL TO THE UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), provides the City of Salinas (City) with a federal entitlement of HOME funds to finance the preservation and production of affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021, awarded the City an allocation of $2,918,774 in HOME American Rescue Plan (HOME-ARP) grant funds to address the need of qualifying populations for housing and supportive services; and
WHEREAS, as a requirement of receiving HOME-ARP funds, the City is required to develop a HOME-ARP Allocation Plan comprised of a summary of the consultation and public participation process, a needs assessment and gap analysis, a summary of the planned use of the funds, and an estimate of the number of housing units the City will produce or preserve with the funds; and WHEREAS, the City, through targeted, robust community engagement and the solicitation of input and data, has prepared a HOME-ARP Allocation Plan; and WHEREAS, the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan proposes to allocate funds towards supportive services as further described and defined in the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, a draft of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, a 30-day invitation for public comment, and notice of a required public hearing were published on September 3, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on October 4, 2022, to obtain further comment and consider the draft HOME-ARP Allocation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City was initially allocated $145,939 for the administration and planning of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City will receive its remaining allocation $2,480,958 in HOME-ARP funds, and an additional $291,877 for administration and planning of the HOME-ARP award; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to allocate $437,816 of its HOME-ARP allocation towards program planning and administration and $2,480,958 toward the provision of supportive services for all qualifying populations as defined by HUD Notice: CPD-21-10; and WHEREAS, the Salinas City Council desires to approve the proposed HOME-ARP Allocation Plan and authorize its submission to HUD for review and approval.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Salinas that it hereby approves the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan as prepared and authorizes its submission to HUD for final review and approval.
2 PASSED AND APPROVED this 4th day of October 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

______________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:

_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

CITY OF SALINAS

HOME-ARP ALLOCATION PLAN
Community Development Department-Housing Division
65 W. Alisal
Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 758-7334

September 4, 2022
This page was intentionally left blank.

DRAFT

HOME-ARP ALLOCATION PLAN
HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program
American Rescue Plan
This page was intentionally left blank.

CITY COUNCIL
Kimbley Craig
Mayor
Carla Viviana González
Councilmember
Tony Barrera
Councilmember
Steve McShane
Councilmember
Orlando Osornio
Councilmember
Christie Cromeenes
Councilmember
Anthony Rocha
Councilmember

PUBLIC CONTACT INFORMATION
City of Salinas
Community Development Department
Attn: Megan Hunter, Director
65 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 758-7206
This page was intentionally left blank.

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................- 1 - INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................- 1 - HOME-ARP ELIGIBLE QUALIFYING POPULATIONS AND ACTIVITIES..........................................................- 2 - STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................- 2 - CONSULTATION SURVEY ...........................................................................................................................- 4 - SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM CONSULTED ORGANIZATIONS ...........................................- 10 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION...........................................................................................................................- 10 - SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC................................................................................- 17 - NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND GAP ANALYSIS...............................................................................................- 17 - SIZE AND DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF HOME-ARP QUALIFYING POPULATIONS .........................- 18 - Table 1 - Housing Inventory and Gap Analysis........................................................................................- 19 - Table 2 - Non-Homeless Housing Inventory and Gap Analysis...............................................................- 21 - UNMET HOUSING AND SERVICE NEEDS OF QUALIFYING POPULATIONS...............................................- 24 - HOME-ARP ACTIVITIES............................................................................................................................- 24 - Table 3 - HOME ARP Funding Activities..................................................................................................- 24 - HOME-ARP PRODUCTION HOUSING GOALS...........................................................................................- 24 - PREFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................- 25 - HOME-ARP REFINANCING GUIDELINES ..................................................................................................- 25 - APPENDIX A CERTIFICATIONS AND SF-424 ........................................................................................- 26 - Figures
Figure 1 Populations Serviced...................................................................................................................- 5 - Figure 2 - Rank Supportive Services Based on the Highest to Lowest Priority .........................................- 6 - Figure 3 - Rank Needs for Housing Based on Highest Priority to Lowest Priority ....................................- 7 - Figure 4 - Comments on Other Eligible Uses ............................................................................................- 8 - Figure 5 - Website Notice .........................................................................................................................- 9 - Figure 6 - Salinas Resident Verification...................................................................................................- 12 - Figure 7 - Eligible Activities Ranked from Highest to Lowest Priority.....................................................- 13 - Figure 8 - Eligible Populations Ranked from Highest to Lowest Priority ................................................- 14 - Figure 9 - Supportive Services Ranked from Highest to Lowest Priority ................................................- 15 - Figure 10 - Other Comments ..................................................................................................................- 16 - - 1 - | Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Salinas was allocated $ 2,918,774 of HOME American Recovery Plan Act (HOMEARP) funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in Fiscal Year 2021. HOME-ARP funds will be used to assist all the qualifying populations described in the Notice CPD-21-10: Requirements of the Use of Funds in the HOME-American Rescue Plan Program. Funding is earmarked to perform four key activities: (1) development and support of affordable housing, (2) tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA), (3) provision of supportive services; and (4) acquisition and development of non-congregate shelter units.

To receive the HOME-ARP allocation, the City of Salinas consulted with agencies and service providers to identify the unmet needs and gaps in housing and service delivery systems for all qualifying populations. The Allocation Plan (AP) set forth describes how the City of Salinas intends to distribute HOME-ARP funds and how it will expend funds to address the needs of all HOME-ARP qualifying populations. The final AP will be submitted to HUD as a substantial amendment to its Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Action Plan, and includes the following required elements:

1. A summary of the consultation process including methods used and feedback received.

2. A summary of the public participation process including feedback received.

3. A needs assessment of the four qualifying populations including demographic composition.

4. A gap analysis of the unmet housing and service needs of each qualifying population.

5. A table including HOME-ARP funding distribution for each eligible project or activity.

6. An estimate of affordable housing units that will be produced or preserved.

7. A description of preferences.

8. HOME-ARP Refinancing Guidelines.

9. Certifications and SF-424, SF-424B and SF-424D Forms.

INTRODUCTION
The Monterey and San Benito County Continuum of Care (CoC) is coordinated by the Coalition of Homeless Services Providers (CHSP), in partnership with the City of Salinas, the County of Monterey Department of Social Services, the County of Monterey Health Department, and the County of San Benito Health and Human Services Department. In 2009, the CoC developed a framework to guide jurisdictions (Counties and cities), providers, and other key stakeholders to maximize the impact on reducing homelessness.

The Lead Me Home action plan establishes measurable goals and targets to reduce homelessness by 50% over the next five years (July 2021 through June 2026). This 50% reduction will be achieved through three key strategies (1) increase participation in homeless solutions by leaders and key stakeholders from across the region, (2) improve the performance of the homelessness response system, (3) expand service-oriented responses to unsheltered homelessness.

This plan sets out to align available funding to support the activities identified in each year’s action plan. Year one of the action plan will cover fiscal year starting July 2021 to June 2022. An essential - 2 - | Page
activity for year one is to continue investing in acquisition and conversion of motels by applying to Homekey program funds, available through the State of California, for projects in Salinas which will provide permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness. Another important action is to increase investment in rapid rehousing, navigation services, and housing focused case management to improve the ability to secure housing for participants exiting an emergency shelter.

These collaborative efforts are highlighted in the allocation plan as it serves an important regional framework with specific target goals.

HOME-ARP ELIGIBLE QUALIFYING POPULATIONS AND ACTIVITIES CPD Notice 21-10 Requirements for the Use of Funds in the HOME-American Rescue Plan Program outlines the requirements for funds appropriated under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 for the HOME Partnership Program (HOME) to provide homelessness assistance and supportive services. The American Rescue Plan Act defines qualifying individuals or families as:
• Homeless, as defined in section 24 CFR 91.5;
• At risk of homelessness, as defined in section 24 CFR 91.5; • Fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking, as defined by HUD in 24 CFR 5.2003; • Other populations (i.e., individuals and families) as defined in 24 CFR 91.5, where providing supportive services or assistance would:
o Prevent a family’s homelessness;
o Serve those with the greatest risk of housing instability. • At greatest risk of housing instability as defined in 24 CFR 91.5.

HOME-ARP funds can be used to benefit qualifying populations through:

1. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA)

2. Development and support of affordable housing

3. Supportive services provisions

4. Acquisition and development of non-congregate shelter

5. Nonprofit capacity building and operating assistance

6. Program planning and administration

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City of Salinas consulted services providers from multiple agencies in preparing this HOMEARP Allocation Plan. The agencies that were consulted provide services to qualifying populations and include the Continuum of Care, homeless and domestic violence service providers, veterans’ groups, public housing agencies, and other private agencies that address fair housing, civil rights, and the needs of persons with disabilities. The consultation process was coordinated by Housing Division staff through various methods including regional partnership meetings, email blast, an online survey, website announcement, and community meetings. - 3 - | Page
Partner agencies were emailed an electronic survey link which required ranking needs from highest priority to lowest priority. In addition, the HOME-ARP survey was also emailed to the city’s housing group with over 170 partners ranging from private and public entities. The following table summarizes the names and types of organizations consulted, feedback summary, and the methods by which they were contacted:
- 4 - | Page

CONSULTATION SURVEY
The City of Salinas identified twenty-five community partner agencies who service the qualifying populations as defined by the HOME American Rescue Plan Program in notice CPD-21-10 issued on September 12, 2021. A point-of-contact was identified for each agency and email notifications were sent periodically during a six-week window requesting feedback via an electronic survey.

Participants were provided a short description about the program’s purpose and disclosed the amount allocated to the City of Salinas for further consideration. Survey respondents reported serving more than 65,000 individuals per year collectively and the following information summarizes the feedback received from service providers.

Figure 1 outlines the populations serviced by respondents. A total of 88.24% of survey respondents indicated providing services to individuals, family experiencing homelessness, and individuals with disabilities. An additional 58.82% of survey respondents indicated providing services to individuals or families fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking. Another 58.82% of survey respondents indicated providing services to veterans or families that include a veteran family member. The following responses were accepted as “other” populations serviced: justice-involved veterans, survivors, transitioning service members, seniors, tenants, landlords, victims of housing discrimination, people with psychiatric disabilities, chronically unsheltered unaccompanied adults, homeless transition-age youth, and individuals or families needing help with substance abuse. All responses were accepted and included as feedback.

Figure 2 asked respondents to rank the need for supportive services in the City of Salinas from highest to lowest priority. Most respondents indicated that “case management” and “housing search and counseling” were the top two choices. The third choice for supportive services was for “mental health and substance abuse treatment” and “financial assistance costs and rental assistance”. Based on the responses, “landlord/tenant services” and “transportation” were ranked the lowest among survey participants.

Figure 3 lists the responses for eligible activities ranked from highest to lowest priority and summarizes the results. Based on the feedback received, “rehabilitating existing structures to be used as permanent affordable housing” obtained the highest score. The second highest priority was the need for “supportive services for rental housing counseling and/or direct homeless prevention services”. The third choice was “acquisition of land and new affordable housing construction”. A total of seventeen (17) providers provided feedback to determine the highest priority.

Participants who completed the survey were also asked to provide comment on other eligible uses that could potentially receive funding but were not mentioned. A total of twelve (12) respondents provided additional comments and these have been outlined in Figure 4 with a summary of the feedback received. Figure 5 demonstrates the website announcement to promote the survey with service providers. All comments were accepted and included as part of the consultation process. - 5 - | Page
Figure 1 Populations Serviced
- 6 - | Page
Figure 2 - Rank Supportive Services Based on the Highest to Lowest Priority - 7 - | Page
Figure 3 - Rank Needs for Housing Based on Highest Priority to Lowest Priority - 8 - | Page
Figure 4 - Comments on Other Eligible Uses
- 9 - | Page
Figure 5 - Website Notice
- 10 - | Page

SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM CONSULTED ORGANIZATIONS The consultation revealed strong support for the need of additional affordable housing, specifically permanent supportive housing. Those who responded to the survey also agreed that providing support to individuals or families experiencing homelessness or experiencing housing instability had the highest need for services and should be prioritized. Many participants mentioned the need for housing through the rehabilitation of existing structures such as motels, hotels, or other facilities.

The activities with the highest rankings were case management, housing search and counseling, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and financial assistance for housing related costs (Figure 2). Respondents were asked if they believed there was a need for nonprofit capacity building and operating assistance, yet responses ranked this option last (Figure 3). Supportive services for landlord and tenant services, including transportation, were also ranked among the lowest. The responses inform their recommendation for:

1. Individuals or families experiencing homelessness;

2. Rehabilitation of structures such as motels and hotels;

3. Supportive services for case management, housing counseling, mental health, and substance abuse treatment services.

Public Comments and Recommendations Not Accepted and Reasons Why All comments were accepted and included in the summary of comments and recommendations.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City of Salinas staff conducted a robust public participation process during the development of the allocation plan. Public participation included a 30-day public comment period, community meetings, an electronic survey, social media announcements, and one public hearing. A detailed breakdown of the comments and recommendations received through the public participation process either in writing, or orally at our public hearing meeting are included as part of the allocation plan.

Public Participation Process: Information about the public hearing and open comment period (starting on September 4 to October 4, 2022) was published in two local newspapers (The Californian in English and El Sol in Spanish). A public survey was also open to all members of the community and it was promoted on the City’s website and social media platforms.

Community Meeting
Date: June 16, 2022
Location: Sherwood Hall 940 N Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Time: 6pm-8pm
- 11 - | Page
Description: Provided participants a summary of the program and a QR code to complete the survey.

Public Comments
Date: September 4, 2022 – October 4, 2022
Description: A public notice following the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, special accommodations will be made for people with special needs.

Public Hearing
Date: October 4, 2022
Location: 200 Lincoln Ave Salinas, CA 93901
Time: Approximately 4:00pm
Description: The Salinas City Council will hold a public hearing to consider and discuss the proposed Allocation Plan and accept public comments.

Housing and Land Use Committee
Date: September 27, 2022
Location: 200 Lincoln Ave Salinas, CA 93901
Time: Approximately 3:30pm
Description: The Housing and Land Use Committee will hold a public hearing to consider and discuss the proposed Allocation Plan and accept public comments.

Efforts to Broaden Public Participation: Opportunities for public participation to comment on the planning, development, and review of the proposed allocation plan were publicized and disseminated in accordance with the City’s Citizen Participation Plan (CPP). Hearings were held in the afternoon and disability-related accommodations were available per request. The City made accommodations available for those who required translation services. In addition to these efforts, all public engagement material was also made available in Spanish. Lastly, the community meetings provided food, translation, and childcare. The City is committed in keeping all interested groups and individuals informed of activities being proposed under HUD entitlement programs. - 12 - | Page
Figure 6 - Salinas Resident Verification
- 13 - | Page
Figure 7 – Eligible Activities Ranked from Highest to Lowest Priority - 14 - | Page
Figure 8 – Eligible Populations Ranked from Highest to Lowest Priority - 15 - | Page
Figure 9 - Supportive Services Ranked from Highest to Lowest Priority - 16 - | Page
Figure 10 - Other Comments
- 17 - | Page

SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC
Permanent supportive housing through the rehabilitation of motels or hotels was scored as the highest priority based on Figure 7 of the survey results. Acquisition of land and new affordable housing construction was ranked second in terms of highest priority. Figure 8 indicates that families experiencing homelessness is the highest need for services. Individuals or families fleeing from domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking was ranked second.

Supportive service provisions like case management, fair housing, mental health services, housing counseling, substance abuse services, and legal services were included in the survey. Respondents were asked to rank what they believed is the highest need for services eligible under HOME-ARP (Figure 9). The activities with the highest rank were mental health and substance abuse treatment, transportation, and financial assistance for housing related costs.

Respondents were asked if they believed there was a need for nonprofit capacity building and operating assistance. Of the responses received, this option was cumulatively ranked last.

Supportive services for legal services, housing search, and counseling services were also ranked among the lowest. The responses inform their recommendation for:

1. Individuals or families experiencing homelessness;

2. Rehabilitation of structures such as motels and hotels;

3. Supportive services for mental health and substance abuse treatment services.

Public Comments and Recommendations Not Accepted and Reasons Why The public survey verified respondents were City of Salinas residents with two questions. The first asking whether they were city residents and the second asked for their zip code. One respondent indicated they were not a resident and consequently, this survey was removed. All other comments were accepted and included in the summary of comments and recommendations.

NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND GAP ANALYSIS
A required part of the allocation plan is to reference available data to complete a gap analysis for current shelter and housing inventory, including the service delivery system. To accomplish this requirement, the needs assessment and gap analysis set forth evaluated the 1) size and demographic composition of HOME-ARP qualifying populations, and the 2) unmet needs of HOME-ARP qualifying populations. This needs assessment and gap analysis focuses on the following:

1. Sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations;

2. Currently housed populations at risk of homelessness;

3. Other families requiring services or housing to prevent homelessness; and

4. Those at greatest risk of housing instability or unstable housing situations. - 18 - | Page

SIZE AND DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF HOME-ARP QUALIFYING

POPULATIONS
Although the needs assessment and gaps analysis were based on the latest available data, the number of individuals and families experiencing homelessness may be underrepresented due to COVID-19. To determine the unmet needs of HOME-ARP qualifying populations, the following data sources were used:
• 2022 Monterey County Homeless Point-In-Time Count & Survey (PIT Count) • 2020 American Community Survey (ACS)
• 2021 Continuum of Care Housing Inventory Count Report (HIC) • 2021-2026 Lead Me Home Plan
• 2019 Monterey County Point-in-Time Count
• 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Data (CHAS) Homeless as defined in 24 CFR 91.5
Homelessness is an urgent and growing social problem driven by escalating housing costs and exacerbated by the turmoil of the pandemic. The most recent complete homeless point-in-time (PIT) count of both unsheltered and sheltered people experiencing homelessness was completed on January 27th and 28th of 2022, as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Results for unsheltered and sheltered individuals experiencing homelessness provided valuable context for basic demographic details, special needs information, and other relevant characteristics. Outreach efforts were impacted by the COVID-19 surge; therefore, the PIT count was conducted to prioritize the participant’s health and safety. It should be noted that annual PIT counts measure the scope of homelessness on a single night, it does not represent every person who will experience homelessness throughout the year.

A total of 2,047 individuals experiencing homelessness were counted during the 2022 PIT count.

According to the count report, the majority 66% of individuals experiencing homelessness in Monterey County were unsheltered, sleeping on the streets, in abandoned buildings, vehicles, encampment areas, and in other places deemed unfit for human habitation. This represents a 15% decrease from 2019 and is the lowest point-in-time count in the last decade.

The report was helpful identifying other characteristics of individuals experiencing homelessness such as age, gender, and racial identity. About 74% of homeless individuals were male, 26% were female, and less than 1% were transgender. Fifty-four percent 54% identified as Hispanic/Latino, 64% identified as White, 13% identified as Black/African American, and 6% identified as multirace/other, or American Indian. The PIT also provided demographics related to age. According to the PIT demographics, 3% of survey respondents were under the age of 25 at the time of the 2022 survey. Thirty-six percent 36% were between the ages of 25 and 40, and 61% were 41 years or older.
- 19 - | Page
In conclusion, the biggest obstacles to obtaining permanent housing were inability to afford rent 71%, lack of a job/income 956%, and lack of money for moving costs 35%. The data summarized in this section provide valuable insights to inform policy decision-making and funding activity by local jurisdictions.

Veteran Experiencing Homelessness and Families that Include a Veteran Family Member One hundred and fifty-four (154) veterans experiencing homelessness were identified in the 2022 Monterey County Point-in-Time Count. From the reported 154 veterans, 51% were unsheltered and 49% were sheltered. Based on the survey results, the top four responses for the primary cause of homelessness among veterans is 1) financial issues; 2) mental health issues; 3) incarceration; and 4) legal issues.

The report provided minimal data for this special population and consequently, data from the 2019 Monterey County Point-in-Time Count will be used to provide additional demographics.

According to this report, the majority (90%) of veterans experiencing homelessness identified as male and 21% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. In terms of racial identity, 43% identified as White, while 26% identified as Black/African American and 28% as multi-race or other.

Table 1 - Housing Inventory and Gap Analysis
Housing Inventory and Gap Analysis
HUD 2021 CoC Housing Inventory Count 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count Gap Analysis HH w/ Children Adults Only Vets Family
HH (at
least 1
child)
Adult
HH
(w/o
child)
Vets Victims of
DV
Family Adults Only
# of Beds # of Units # of Beds # of
Units
# of
Beds
# of
Beds
# of
Units
# of
Beds
# of
Units
Emergency
Shelter¹ 185 7 177 N/A 0
Transitional
Housing¹ 42 9 24 N/A 20
Permanent
Supportive
Housing¹
0 0 61 N/A 383
Other:

Rapid ReHousing¹5 1 7 N/A 35
Sheltered
Homeless 113 288 75 41
Unsheltered
Homeless 3 777 79 13
Current
Gap (116) N/A 796 N/A
Data Source: 1. HUD 2021 Continuum of Care Housing Inventory Count; 2. 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count; 3. N/A- Information not available
- 20 - | Page
Methodology: Calculate the inventory for families, adults, domestic violence victims, and veterans using data from the HUD 2021 Housing Inventory Count Report. Subtract the number of families, adults, veterans, and victims of domestic violence using the 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count. Complete the gap analysis using the difference between the inventory and the point-in-time count.

Summary: The 2021 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) quantifies the number of beds and units available to adults, families with children, veterans, and victims of domestic violence. Table 1 summarize the housing inventory for emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and rapid re-housing. This regional report quantifies the information for Salinas, Monterey, and San Benito Counties. However, the City of Salinas has 14 projects with bed inventory (8 emergency shelter, 2 rapid rehousing, 3 transitional housing, and 1 permanent supportive housing) with a total capacity of 501 beds. The City of Salinas has a bed utilization rate of 88% according to the HIC report, however it does not include the units for adult households without children. For purposes of this report, the regional number of beds available to veterans was included in Table 1.

Gap Analysis: The City of Salinas has a gap in beds for adult households without children.

According to the reported number of beds for Salinas and the 2022 homeless count, there is a gap of seven hundred and ninety-six beds.

Individuals and Families at Risk of Homelessness (24 CFR 91.5) Households at risk of homelessness are individuals and/or families who have an income below 30% of the area median income (AMI) who lack sufficient resources or support networks to prevent them from becoming homeless. This criteria also includes those who have moved two or more times during the last 60 days due to economic reasons, live in an overcrowded household, or face housing instability. According to HUD, housing needs within a community are assessed using the following criteria: (1) the number of households that are paying too much for housing; (2) the number of households living in overcrowded units; and (3) the number of households living in substandard housing conditions.

Cost burden is an important housing issue because paying too much for housing leaves less available money for basic needs such as food, living expenses, and emergency expenditures.

According to the federal government, any housing condition where a household spends more than 30 percent of income on housing is considered cost burdened. A cost burden of 30 to 50 percent is considered moderate; payment more than 50 percent of income is considered a severe cost burden.

In Salinas, 34 percent of low and moderate-income households were affected by a housing cost burden, of which 40 percent were paying at least 50 percent of their income towards housing.

Individuals and families at risk of homelessness were assessed using the 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data. According to this data, the City of Salinas has a total of 3,655 rental units affordable to households at or below 30% AMI with 3,040 having at least 1 of 4 housing problems. According to the CHAS report, the four severe housing problems may include an: incomplete kitchen, incomplete plumbing, more than 1.5 persons per - 21 - | Page
room, and a cost burden greater than 50%. In addition, Salinas has 4,570 renter households between 30% and 50% AMI, with 4,200 of these having one or more housing problems. The following table provides details on the number of these households. Based on this information, the current gap in housing inventory for this population is estimated to be nine hundred and eightyfive.

Table 2 - Non-Homeless Housing Inventory and Gap Analysis Non-Homeless Housing Inventory and Gap Analysis
Current
Inventory Level of Need Gap Analysis
# of Units # of Households # of Households
Total Rental Units 22,480
Rental Units Affordable to HH at
0%-30% AMI (At-Risk of
Homelessness)
3,655
Rental Units Affordable to HH at
30%-50% AMI (Other Populations) 4,570
0%-30% AMI Renter HH w/ 1 or
more severe housing problems
(At-Risk of Homelessness)
3,040
30%-50% AMI Renter HH w/ 1 or
more severe housing problems
(Other Populations)
4,200
Current Gaps 985
Data Sources: 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Methodology: Calculate the inventory units available for renters using 2014-2018 CHAS data for the City of Salinas. Then calculate the level of need by quantifying the number of households.

Complete the gap analysis using the difference between the current unit inventory and the number of households for 1) 0% - 30% AMI (At-Risk of Homelessness) and 2) 30% - 50% AMI (Other populations).

Summary: HUD’s 2014-2018 CHAS data for the City of Salinas provided helpful context regarding income cost burden and housing problems that negatively impact households.

Gap Analysis: The City of Salinas has a gap in units for families at risk of homelessness of nine hundred and eighty-eight.

Fleeing, or Attempting to Flee, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, or Human Trafficking, as defined by HUD in the Notice
- 22 - | Page
Victims of domestic violence often need transitional housing and other supportive services such as legal services, counseling, affordable childcare, and employment training. Two non-profit agencies in Salinas offer services to meet the needs of domestic violence survivors. Additionally, the Domestic Violence Coordinating Council of Monterey County is focused on improving coordination between agencies and departments to better service domestic violence victims. The Council is responsible for establishing procedures, conduct reviews, develop policies, and address responsiveness to domestic violence issues.

The Community Human Services (CHS) offers the Salinas Warming Shelter (emergency shelter), and the YWCA of Monterey County provides the Lawson Safehouse (a confidential safe house for women and children), legal advocacy services, and a school-based program for children (K-5) of domestic violence victims. Both agencies provide street outreach, domestic violence intervention, substance abuse and mental health counselling and recovery services to low-and moderate-income households.

During the 2022 Monterey County Homeless Point-in-Time Count, thirty-three percent (33%) of the two hundred and forty-three (N=243) survey respondents reported experiencing physical, emotional, or sexual abuse by a relative or another person they had stayed with (spouse, partner sibling, parent) in their lifetime. Ten percent (4%) of survey respondents reported currently experiencing domestic/partner violence or abuse.

During the 2019 Monterey County Homeless Point-in-Time Count, twenty-six (26%) of the four hundred and thirty-one (N=431) survey respondents reported experiencing physical, emotional, or sexual abuse by a relative or another person they had stayed with (spouse, partner sibling, parent) in their lifetime. Ten percent (10%) of survey respondents reported currently experiencing domestic/partner violence or abuse.

According to Kidsdata.org, there were five hundred and fifty-four (554) domestic violence calls made for the City of Salinas in 2020, compared to six hundred and thirty-seven (637) calls in 2019.

The decline in phone calls made to law enforcement organizations are consistent with the decline in PIT numbers.

Other Populations
As defined by HOME-ARP, other populations include individuals and families who:

1. Have incomes at or below 30% HUD area median family income (HAMFI) and are experiencing severe housing cost burden; and

2. At risk of homelessness and have incomes between 30% and 50% AMI.

The 2014-2018 HUD CHAS data indicates there are 2,965 (25%) renter households with an annual income at or below 30% HAMFI with a moderate cost burden of less than 30%. A total of 2,440 (44%) renter households with an annual income between 30% to less-than or equal to 50% HAMFI with a severe cost burden. Households experiencing moderate to severe cost burden is an important housing issue because paying too much for housing leaves less money available for basics such as - 23 - | Page
food and living expenses as well as for emergency expenditures. that are at greatest risk of housing instability.

Other Current Resources Available to Assist Qualifying Populations In 2021, Project Roomkey (PRK) initiatives under the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) were created to provide non-congregate shelter options (e.g., hotels, motels, trailers) to individuals experiencing homelessness with specific prioritization to those who are COVIDpositive or known to have been exposed to COVID-19. To support emerging and ongoing emergency shelter opportunities for homeless residents, the City currently funds a small-scale scattered site emergency shelter motel program collaboratively serviced and operated by the Central Coast Center for Independent Living (CCCIL) and California State University Monterey Bay’s Community Health Engagement Team (CSUMB CHE). This program serves as a pipeline for chronically homeless individuals who are interested in other City housing opportunities, such as the permanent, and supportive housing Project Homekey program.

Monterey County and Coalition of Homeless Services Providers (CHSP) successfully operate two PRK programs. The PRK service model seeks to go beyond the necessary provision of safe housing to include:
• A coordinated intake process,
• On-site offices and staffing that provide intensive case management and ‘wrap around services’ to develop, execute, and support individual housing navigation plans with a focus on permanent housing placements,
• Enforcement of program guidelines, and
• Regular ongoing reporting to enable access and support County FEMA reimbursement.

Case management services involving engagement, housing preparation, stabilization, and crisis planning are provided by CSUMB CHE staff and will compliment and support the site management and navigation to permanent housing activities provided by CCCIL. The City of Salinas PRK Motel Program is instrumental in providing immediate, safe housing opportunities for those most in need while also providing strong support for the best practices “housing first” model. This Program also represents an opportunity to leverage multiple funding sources effectively and creatively and to collaborate with local service providers and neighboring jurisdictions to provide much needed services to the City and County’s most vulnerable population.

Additionally, the City of Salinas has three (3) Homekey sites, also known as: Step Up in Salinas, Step Up on Fairview, and Step Up on Sanborn. All three sites offer permanent housing with supportive services including case management, employment assistance, referrals to mental health services, peer support training, and transportation services. The Step Up in Salinas site consists of 103 rooms and is equipped to provide 101 homeless and chronically homeless individuals earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income with interim housing. Two of the existing units are dedicated to on-site property managers. The Step Up in Fairview site will be converted into forty- - 24 - | Page
two (42) micro studios, and the Step Up on Sandborn site will be converted into fifty-seven (57) micro studios by 2023.

UNMET HOUSING AND SERVICE NEEDS OF QUALIFYING POPULATIONS Based on the consultation with service providers in the City, the greatest unmet service needs of qualifying populations, including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations, currently housing populations at risk of homelessness, other families requiring service or assistance to prevent homelessness, and those at greatest risk of housing instability or in unstable housing situations are:
• Mental health services
• Case management services
• Housing search/counseling services
• Financial assistance
• Outreach services

HOME-ARP ACTIVITIES
Table 3 - HOME ARP Funding Activities
HOME-ARP Funding Activities
Activity Funding Amount Percent of
Allocation
Statutory
Limit
Supportive Services $ 2,480,957.90
Acquisition and Development of NonCongregate Shelters
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA)
Development of Affordable Rental
Housing
Non-Profit Operating
Non-Profit Capacity Building
Administration and Planning $ 437,816.10 15% 15%
Total HOME ARP Allocation $2,918,774.00

HOME-ARP PRODUCTION HOUSING GOALS
The City of Salinas estimates that ninety-nine (99) affordable rental housing units for qualifying populations will be produced or supported with its HOME-ARP allocation.

Describe the specific affordable rental housing production goal that the PJ hopes to achieve and describe how the production goal will address the PJ’s priority needs:
- 25 - | Page

PREFERENCES
Based on the need and gap analysis, the City of Salinas will not provide preference to any qualifying population or subpopulation. All qualifying populations or subpopulations will be eligible for activities funded through this program.

HOME-ARP REFINANCING GUIDELINES
The City of Salinas does not intend to utilize HOME-ARP funds to refinance existing debt.

Therefore, refinancing guidelines pursuant to 24 CFR 92.206(b) are not applicable to this HOME-ARP Allocation Plan.
- 26 - | Page

APPENDIX A
CERTIFICATIONS AND SF-424
HOME-American Rescue Plan
Allocation Plan
Community Development Department
October 4, 2022
Executive Summary
 HUD entitlement jurisdiction
 One-time allocation of $2,918,774
 Grant Agreement signed on January 13, 2022
 Required Allocation Plan
 Initial $145,938 made available to support
administrative and planning costs
 Expenditure Deadline: September 30, 2030
Development & Process
Consultation
Process
Needs Assessment
Gap Analysis

HOME-AMERICAN RESCUE
PLAN

ALLOCATION PLAN
Qualifying Populations
4 defined HOME-ARP qualifying populations:
 Homeless
 At-risk of homelessness
 Fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking
 Others at greatest risk of housing instability where providing supportive services or assistance would:
o prevent homelessness
o serve those with greatest risk of housing instability Required Consultation
Service
Providers
&
Public
Participation
Survey
Website
&
Email blast
Social
Media
Newspaper
Community
Meetings
Public
Hearing
Feedback & Input
Service Providers:
 25 organizations, 17 responses
 Strong support for permanent affordable housing and rehabilitation of existing structures  Homeless individuals and families ranked highest priority  Mental health services or substance abuse treatment ranked highest priority for supportive services
Public/Community Input:
 30 responses
 Strong support for permanent affordable housing and rehabilitation of existing structures  Homeless individuals and families ranked highest priority  Case management, housing search counseling, and mental health services ranked highest for supportive services
Needs Assessment
Data Sources:
 2022 Monterey County Homeless Point-In-Time Count (PIT)  2020 American Community Survey (ACS)
 2021 Continuum of Care Housing Inventory Count Report (HIC)  2021-2026 Lead Me Home Plan (LMHP)
 2019 Monterey County Point-in-Time Count (PIT)
 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Data (CHAS) Gap Analysis
Key Findings:
 2022 Point in Time Count
 2,047 individuals experiencing homelessness
 66% unsheltered
 Current City Housing Resources
 14 current funded projects/initiatives
 8 emergency shelter, 2 rapid rehousing, 3 transitional housing, and 1 permanent supportive housing
 501 bed capacity
 Gap/Need
 beds for adult households without children.

HOME-ARP Fund Allocation
HOME-ARP Funding Activities
Activity Funding Amount Percent of
Allocation
Statutory
Limit
Supportive Services $ 2,480,957.90
Acquisition and Development of NonCongregate Shelters
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA)
Development of Affordable Rental
Housing
Non-Profit Operating
Non-Profit Capacity Building
Administration and Planning $ 437,816.10 15% 15%
Total HOME ARP Allocation $2,918,774.00
CEQA Consideration
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).
 Housing/Affordable Housing
 Effective and Culturally Responsive Government
 Eligible for allocation of $2,918,774
 No General Fund Impact
Strategic Plan Goals & Strategies
Fiscal Impact
Recommended Action
A motion to approve a Resolution approving the proposed HOME-ARP Allocation Plan and authorizing its submittal
to HUD for review and final approval.

Questions & Comments
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-529, Version: 1
Developer Selection for 855 E. Laurel Drive Request for Qualifications for the Design and Development of a Proposed 100% Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing Project Approve a Resolution jointly selecting, with the County of Monterey, Eden Housing Inc. as the developer for the 855 E. Laurel Drive Request for Qualifications for the design and development of a proposed 100% Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing Project.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/28/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2022
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: MEGAN HUNTER, DIRECTOR

THROUGH ROD POWELL, PLANNING MANAGER
PREPARED BY: LUIS OCHOA, SR. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST TITLE: DEVELOPER SELECTION FOR 855 E. LAUREL DRIVE

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED 100% AFFORDABLE

MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution:

1. jointly selecting, with the County of Monterey, Eden Housing Inc. as the developer for the 855 E. Laurel Drive Request for Qualifications for the design and development of a proposed 100% Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing Project; and

2. authorizing the City Manager or designee to continue to work with the County in negotiating and drafting an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and modifying the City/County MOU to clarify development responsibilities, funding, and the equitable split of the Project’s developed housing units applicable to each jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for future Board of Supervisor and City Council consideration.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that City Council approve a Resolution:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On May 6, 2022, the City of Salinas (City) and the County of Monterey (County) jointly released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) seeking a highly qualified developer for the design and Page | 2
development of a 100% Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing Project (Project) at 855 E. Laurel Drive consistent with the 2021 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed by both jurisdictions. The City and County received eight (8) proposals, and following an extensive rating and interview process, Eden Housing Inc. (Developer) unanimously emerged as the most qualified and experienced developer to take on this new Project. In upcoming months, the City, County, and Developer will engage in negotiations to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA), modifications to the existing MOU, and the potential allocation of funds to support the predevelopment costs of the Project. Upon completion of these items, the County and Developer will negotiate and enter into a Ground Lease for the proposed County-owned Project site.

BACKGROUND:

In 2017, the City and County commenced informal discussions to jointly plan for the future construction and operation of a permanent Homeless Shelter and a permanent supportive/transitional housing project at 1220 Natividad Road. These discussions became more formalized on March 20, 2018, when the City Council (Council) and Board of Supervisors (BOS) jointly directed staff to proceed with the execution of a formal agreement to establish and allocate various responsibilities between the two jurisdictions and formalized its execution on September 25, 2018.

On May 29, 2019, the CA-506 Salinas/Monterey, San Benito Counties Continuum of Care awarded $6,018,100 in funding through the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (“HEAP”) to the County for the construction of a year-round Shelter at 845 E. Laurel Drive. Shortly thereafter, an aggressive construction schedule commenced resulting in the inaugural launch of operations at new Salinas Housing and Advancement Resources & Education Center (SHARE) on May 26, 2021.

Based upon the experience and perspective gained through the development of the SHARE Center, the City and County agreed that a vacant County-owned parcel adjacent to 845 E. Laurel Drive would be a better development opportunity site than the original 1220 Natividad Road location.

On June 22, 2021, the City and County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), to formally established and coordinate roles and responsibilities related to the ongoing operations of the SHARE Center and the future development of a multifamily affordable housing project at the 845 E. Laurel Drive site.

In early 2022, as outlined in the MOU, City and County staff moved forward on the development and execution of an RFQ to seek a highly qualified developer for the Laurel Drive project site.

DISCUSSION:

On May 6, 2022, the City and County jointly released an RFQ seeking a highly qualified developer for the design and development of a 100% Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing Project on the vacant County-owned site at 855 E. Laurel Drive. Initially, RFQ proposals were due on June 6, 2022, but based upon interested developer feedback, the deadline was extended to 5:00 p.m., June 24, 2022. In total, eight (8) proposals were received and initially rated by a group of City and County staff and development consultants. Of these proposals, seven (7) were moved forward for additional consideration and one (1) proposal was disqualified after consultation and concurrence Page | 3
with both the City Attorney and County Counsel due to late submission. Of the seven qualified proposals, the four (4) highest rated proposals were invited to participate in an interactive interview panel comprised of City and County staff, community partners, and other stakeholders on July 27, 2022. Upon conclusion of the interviews, and in consideration of the prior rating process, Eden Housing Inc. emerged as the unanimous choice to pursue additional discussions with on the development of the proposed Project.

The Eden proposal is called Daphne Heights and contemplates a marquis affordable housing development that can grow in phases and provide a picturesque hilltop perch for local families and individuals, particularly farmworkers. Eden acknowledges that their proposal is a starting point, but they anticipate fleshing out the vision in partnership with the City and County. Based on experience, Eden is proposing a site plan that is conducive to phasing, scaled to available financial resources, and designed to keep construction costs manageable. The site plan emphasizes welcoming landscaping ensconced by efficient, attractive walk-up buildings. Each phase of the project would meet the Large Family project type unit mix of at least 25% 2-beds and 25% 3-beds.

Two scenarios are presented below: the first is a two-phase development of 132 units on 5 acres.

The second scenario incorporates additional land that County staff indicated may be available. The additional land is added to the second phase in the first alternative to create a total of 180 units.

This proposal will likely evolve as due diligence is completed and financing is identified and secured.

Simultaneously, staff will also pursue additional modifications to the existing City/County MOU to clarify development responsibilities, funding, and the equitable split of the Project’s developed housing units applicable to each jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. As part of their proposal, Eden Housing requested $500,000 in funding through City American Rescue Plan Act for pre-development costs. Final recommendations on each these additional items will be brought back to Council and BOS for consideration at a future date.

DEPARTMENT COORDINATION:

This agenda item originates from the City’s Community Development Department (CDD), Housing Division under significant, formal collaboration with the County of Monterey and with consultation with the City Attorney.

Page | 4
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:

The selection of Eden Housing Inc. as the non-profit developer for this joint City/County Project supports the City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025 Goals and Strategies of Housing/Affordable Housing and Effective and Culturally Responsive Government.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no General Fund impact associated with the selection of Eden Housing Inc. as the nonprofit developer for the 855 E. Laurel Drive Project. There is no request to commit any funds to support the Project at this time. Eden Housing has requested $500,000 in funding to offset the predevelopment costs. After further discussions with Eden Housing, a future funding agreement may be brought to the City Council for consideration.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. June 22, 2021, City/County MOU

3. Eden Housing Inc. RFQ Proposal

4. PowerPoint Presentation
1 RESOLUTION NO. _________ (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE SELECTION OF EDEN HOUSING INC. AS THE DEVELOPER FOR THE 855 E. LAUREL DRIVE

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A 100% AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT
WHEREAS, in 2017, the City of Salinas (City) and the County of Monterey (County) began discussions on planning for the future construction and operation of a year-round Homeless Shelter and permanent supportive/transitional housing at 1220 Natividad Road; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the City Council and Board of Supervisors (BOS) directed staff to proceed with an agreement to establishing responsibilities between the two jurisdictions on the development of the permanent supportive/transitional housing project at 1220 Natividad Road and permanent Homeless Shelter at 845 East Laurel Drive; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2018, the County and City entered into a MOU for the coordination of responsibilities related to the development of a Shelter; and WHEREAS, on May 29, 2019, the County was awarded $6,018,100 in funding through the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (“HEAP”) by CA-506 Salinas/Monterey, San Benito Counties Continuum of Care for the construction of a year-round Shelter at 845 E. Laurel Drive; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2021, the permanent SHARE Center shelter was placed into operations; and
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, the City and County amended the prior MOU and agreed that the vacant County-owned site at 845 E. Laurel Drive is a preferred location for a future affordable housing project due to the prior completion of site preparation and utility work that would help facilitate future development; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2022, the City and County jointly released a Request for Qualifications seeking a highly qualified developer for the design and development of a 100% Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing Project for 855 E. Laurel Drive; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2022, the City and County received eight proposals; seven of which were accepted and one that was disqualified due to late submission; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 2022, the City, County, development consultants and community partners convened to interview the four top-rated development teams; and WHEREAS, City and County staff have evaluated all submitted proposals, rating and ranking scores and comments, and interview scores, and unanimously agreed that Eden Housing 2 Inc. emerged as the most qualified and experienced developer to pursue further additional discussions on the development of a 100% Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby approves the selection of Eden Housing Inc. as the selected developer for a joint City/County 100% Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing Project at 855 E. Laurel Drive; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or designee to continue to work with the County in negotiating and drafting an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and modifying the City/County MOU to clarify development responsibilities, funding, and the equitable split of the Project’s developed housing units applicable to each jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for future Board of Supervisor and City Council consideration.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 4
th day of October 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RE:

COORDINATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF THE SHARE CENTER
AND DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT 845 EAST LAUREL DRIVE IN

SALINAS, CALIFORNIA
This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is entered into as of this 22 day of June 2021 (the "Effective Date"), by and between the City of Salinas, a California charter city and municipal corporation (the “City”) and County of Monterey (the “County”) for the property located at 845 East Laurel Drive Salinas, California 93906 (referred to as “the Property”), presently owned by the County with reference to the following facts:

RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, in 2017, the City and County began discussions on planning for the future construction and operation of a year-round Homeless Shelter ("Shelter") and permanent supportive/transitional housing ("Housing") at 1220 Natividad Road; and B. WHEREAS, on September 26, 2017 the Salinas City Council ("Council") and County Board of Supervisors ("BOS") executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") authorizing the opening of the Salinas Winter Warming Shelter (“Warming Shelter”) and agreed to work collaboratively toward the future construction and operation of a Shelter on the Property; and
C. WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018 the Council and BOS directed staff to proceed by formalizing an agreement establishing responsibilities between the two jurisdictions on the development of 1220 Natividad Road (housing site) and 845 East Laurel Drive APN 003-851-043-000 (shelter site); and
D. WHEREAS, on September 25, 2018, the County and City entered into a MOU for the coordination of responsibilities related to the establishment of a Shelter, Housing, and Warming Shelter and agreed to coordinate their staff to expedite the development of a Shelter and Housing and conduct the RFP process for the selection of, and negotiation of agreements with a future operator for the Shelter; and E. WHEREAS, on May 29, 2019, the County was awarded $6,018,100 in funding through the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (“HEAP”) by the Continuum of Care for Monterey and San Benito Counties for the construction of a year-round Shelter at 845 East Laurel Drive; and
F. WHEREAS, on September 15, 2020, after the distribution of a community-wide survey, the County Board of Supervisors and Salinas City Council adopted the name of the Salinas Housing Advancement, Resources & Education Center (“SHARE Center”) for the new Shelter at 845 East Laurel Drive; and
G. WHEREAS, on October 28, 2020, the City released a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) seeking a qualified service provider to serve as the new SHARE Center operator; and H. WHEREAS, after conducting a rating and ranking process involving a technical panel, Bay Area Community Services (“BACS”) was recommended to be the operator of the 1 of 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: F415BB72-99C9-4EAC-887F-099B022583AC SHARE Center and at a joint meeting of the County Board of Supervisors and Salinas City Council on February 9, 2021, BACS was formally selected; and I. WHEREAS, having learned from experience gained throughout the construction of the SHARE Center, the City and County have come to agree that 845 East Laurel Drive is the preferred location for future affordable housing especially due to the completion of site preparation and utility work that would help facilitate future development; and J. WHEREAS, the City and County desire that the proposed affordable housing development will be sited on the remaining undeveloped areas on the site with the SHARE Center, and further desire that a portion of the property adjacent to the East Laurel Drive pedestrian improvements shall be reserved for potential future recreational uses to the extent feasible without compromising the viability of the affordable housing development, and delineated in Exhibit A; and
K. WHEREAS, the City and County desire to extend the MOU and continue coordination of operations for the SHARE Center, facilitate the closure of the Warming Shelter and transition occupants to the SHARE Center, and develop affordable housing with a focus on families on the Property.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the purpose of this Agreement is to identify roles and responsibilities between the City and the County for administration of operating the SHARE Center and developing affordable housing with a focus on families (“Housing”) on the Property.

The cost for the operator of the SHARE Center and related services and development of the Housing not covered by federal or state grants or other private funding will be shared by the City and County, with a final distribution of the costs to be determined at a later date.

ARTICLE 1.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The City and County agree to the following terms and conditions, in order to coordinate their staff to effectively operate the SHARE Center and expedite development of Housing at the Property by conducting an RFP process for the selection of, and negotiation of agreements with, a future developer. The cost for SHARE Center operations and housing not covered by federal and state grants or other private funding will be shared by the City and County, with a final distribution of the costs to be determined at a later date.

Section 1.1 Roles and Responsibilities.

A. County:
a. Subject to funding, the County shall be the Lead Agency in conducting an environmental review of the Property for Housing and the City shall be the Responsible Agency;
b. County shall maintain ownership of the Property;
c. Any future conveyance of the Property must be authorized by the County; d. County shall devote personnel and other resources as may be reasonably required during the RFP process for selection of a future Housing Developer 2 of 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: F415BB72-99C9-4EAC-887F-099B022583AC for the Property and final approval of the RFP.

B. City of Salinas
a. Subject to funding, the City shall provide staff resources to assist and expedite permitting of facilities at the Property;
b. Subject to funding, the City shall provide staff resources and shall act as the lead project manager and facilitator during the RFP process for the selection of Housing Developer for the Property;
c. City shall devote personnel and other resources as may be reasonably required;

1. City will draft an RFP for the Housing Developer for the Property subject to County approval;

2. City will manage the RFP process;

3. City will publish and distribute the RFP for Housing Developer for the Property;

4. City will receive RFP bids and determine adequacy and completeness of RFP process;

5. City will document and maintain records associated with the RFP process;

6. City will work collaboratively with County to respond to any RFP questions, comments or appeals.

C. City and County
a. City and County shall each designate staff who shall regularly meet and coordinate in identifying and applying for funding for SHARE Center Operations, Housing development, and the closure of the Warming Shelter and jointly oversee implementation of the MOU.
b. City and County will work collaboratively to rate and rank RFPs submitted; c. City and County shall ensure that all RFPs are reviewed in a fair and open process. The selection process will be outlined in detail in the RFP and will include input by County;
d. City and County will make a recommendation for the selection of a Housing Developer to be forwarded to BOS and Council for final approval; e. A final distribution of related costs will be determined at a later date based on federal and state grants and other private funding available for the SHARE Center and Housing;
f. Property and environmental records, reports and studies shall be shared between the County and City as they become available;
g. Project goals will be jointly determined by the City and the County; 3 of 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: F415BB72-99C9-4EAC-887F-099B022583AC h. A community engagement strategy will be determined by the City with concurrence from the County;
i. City and County staff will continue to work together in drafting contracts for ongoing operations of the SHARE Center;
j. After the approval of the selected developer for Housing by the BOS and Council, the City shall take the lead, but continue to work with County, as owner of the Property, in negotiating and drafting an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA") and Ground Lease (“Ground Lease”);
k. The ENA and Ground Lease must be approved by the BOS prior to entry into those agreements with the selected developer; and
l. The City and County will work together through the Lead Me Home Leadership Council in discussions on SHARE Center, Housing, and federal and state funding, and establishment of a multi-jurisdictional, philanthropic effort to implement the MOU and initiate similar efforts throughout Monterey County.

Section 1.2 Right of Entry.

The City and its consultants shall have full rights to enter upon the identified property during normal business hours to conduct inspections and investigations in accordance with this Agreement. In connection with such entry and investigation, the City shall:
a. repair and restore any damage it may cause;
b. indemnify, defend and hold the County and the BOS, officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all claims, liabilities, damages, losses, expenses, costs and fees (including attorneys’ fees and costs), with the exception of any injury or death to City staff or its consultants which may proximately arise out of the County’s or its consultants’ entry upon the Property or the investigation(s) and test(s) which the City may conduct; arising out of the negligent or intentional acts of the County or dangerous conditions on the Property for which the County should know or have known to exist, provided, however, that this indemnity shall not apply to matters arising from the results of the City’s investigations, tests and inspections (e.g., this indemnity shall not apply to any diminution in value or remediation costs incurred by the City if the County’s investigations were to discover an environmental condition that required remediation).

ARTICLE 2.

GENERAL CONDITIONS
Section 2.1 General Compliance.

City and County agree to comply with all applicable federal, State and local laws and regulations governing public agencies, including any necessary environmental reviews and/or CEQA/NEPA analysis. Documentation of such compliance shall be made available for review by the City and County upon request.
4 of 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: F415BB72-99C9-4EAC-887F-099B022583AC Section 2.2 Administrative Amendments.

This MOU may be amended by a written administrative amendment executed by the City Manager on behalf of the City and, County Administrative Officer or Assistant County Administrative Officer on behalf of the County, subject to any required State or federal approval, provided that such administrative amendments do not substantively change the overall purpose of this Agreement.

Section 2.3 Term.

The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall start as of the Effective Date and shall terminate when the Ground Lease is entered into between the County and a selected developer or when the Projects are deemed by the County and the City to be complete unless extended by a written amendment approved by the Council and BOS.

Section 2.4 Termination.

This Agreement may be terminated by either the City and County upon a written notice given thirty (30) days in advance.

Section 2.5 Warming Shelter.
a. During the Term of this MOU, the City and County will continue to work together on overseeing operations at the Warming Shelter, located at 111 West Alisal Street, Salinas, California until the SHARE Center is fully operational (open for business and transition of shelter occupants completed).
b. The parties agree to coordinate on the closure and demolition of the Warming Shelter.

ARTICLE 3.

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Section 3.1 Documentation and Record-Keeping.
a. Records to be Maintained. The City and County shall maintain all records and such records shall include but not be limited to:
(i) Records providing a full description of each activity undertaken; (ii) Records required to document the solicitation and selection of a developer and operator.
(iii) Records required by funding agencies related to implementation of the MOU.
b. Retention. The City and County shall retain all records pertinent to services performed and expenditures incurred under this Agreement for a period of one (1) year after the termination of all activities under this Agreement. c. Property Records. The County shall supply the City with any Property related documents for City review.
5 of 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: F415BB72-99C9-4EAC-887F-099B022583AC ARTICLE 4.

PERSONNEL AND PARTICIPANT CONDITIONS
Section 4.1 Conduct.
a. Assignability. Neither party shall assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party, at its sole discretion.
b. Hatch Act. The City and County agree that under this Agreement, no funds shall be provided or personnel employed in any way or to any extent engaged in the conduct of political activities that would violate 5 U.S.C. 15. c. Conflict of Interest. The City and County each agree to abide by the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 with respect to conflicts of interest, and each covenants that it presently has no financial interest and shall not acquire any financial interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required under this Agreement.

The City and County each further agrees that in the performance of this Agreement that no person having such a financial interest shall be employed or retained by the City and County. These conflict of interest provisions apply to any person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected official or appointed official of the City and County, or of any designated public agencies or entities.

ARTICLE 5.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Section 5.1 Environmental Responsibilities Generally.

The County (Lead Agency), with the City’s (Responsible Agency) oversight, will carry out the Phase I and Phase II (if needed) environmental assessments of the Property in compliance with all federal and State laws and regulations, including any necessary environmental reviews and/or CEQA/NEPA analysis not otherwise specifically set forth below.

Section 5.2 Applicable Laws and Regulations.

The County and City agree to comply with the following laws and regulations insofar as they apply to the performance of this Agreement:
a. Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 through 7414
b. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1318) relating to inspection, monitoring, entry, reports, and information, as well as other requirements specified in said Section 114 and Section 308, and all regulations and seq.).
c. Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) in regard to the sale, lease or other transfer of land acquired, cleared or improved under the 6 of 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: F415BB72-99C9-4EAC-887F-099B022583AC terms of this Agreement, as it may apply to the provisions of this Agreement.
d. Environmental Protection Agency Lead-Based Paint Regulations. e. Historic Preservation requirements set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470) and the procedures set forth in 36 CFR 800, et seq. In general, this requires concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer for all rehabilitation and demolition of historic properties that are fifty (50) years old or older or that are included on a federal, State, or local historic property list.

ARTICLE 6.

OTHER PROVISIONS
Section 6.1 Entire Agreement.

This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties.

No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto.

Section 6.2 Notices.

Formal notices, demands and communications (other than day to day routine communications) between the City and the County shall be sufficiently given if, and shall not be deemed given unless: (i) dispatched by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, (ii) sent by express delivery or overnight courier service with a delivery receipt, (iii) personally delivered with a delivery receipt, or (iv) sent by electronic mail with a copy delivered by one of the previous three methods, to the office of the parties shown as follows, or such other address as the parties may designate in writing from time to time:

CITY:

City of Salinas With a copy to: City Attorney
Attn: Megan Hunter City of Salinas
65 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor 200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901 Salinas, CA 93901
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] COUNTY:

County of Monterey
Attn: Nick Chiulos, Assistant County Administrative Officer 168 W. Alisal Street, 3rd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
Email: [email protected]
7 of 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: F415BB72-99C9-4EAC-887F-099B022583AC Such written notices, demands and communications shall be effective on the date shown on the delivery receipt as the date delivered or the date on which delivery was refused.

Section 6.3 Conformance with Federal and State Regulations.

Should federal or State regulations touching upon this MOU be adopted, amended or revised during the term hereof, this MOU is subject to modification to assure conformance with such federal or State requirements.

Section 6.4 Severability.

If any term of this MOU is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

Section 6.5 Headings and Captions.

Paragraph titles or captions contained herein are inserted as a matter of convenience and for reference, and in no-way define, limit, extend or describe the scope of this MOU or any provision thereof.

Section 6.6 No Third-Party Beneficiaries.

There are no intended third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement.

Section 6.7 Amendments.

This MOU may not be modified, supplemented, or amended unless in writing by the parties. Any modification, supplementation, amendment, or waiver must be signed by both parties.

Section 6.8 Costs and Expenses.

Each party shall be responsible for its own costs and expenses in connection with any activities and negotiations undertaken in connection with this MOU, and the performance of each party’s obligations under this MOU. The City and County will keep track of any costs and may consider these costs a “contribution” to the construction and operation of the Property.

Section 6.9 No Commissions.

Each party represents to the other that is has not retained, and shall not retain, the services of any broker, agent or finder with respect to the Property or in connection with any matters relating to this Agreement, and agrees to hold the other party harmless from and against any claim for commission, fee, or other remuneration by any broker, agent, or finder under any claimed retainer for services with respect thereto.

Section 6.10 Governing Law; Venue.

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without reference to choice-of-law principles, and venue for any action 8 of 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: F415BB72-99C9-4EAC-887F-099B022583AC under this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of Monterey, subject to any motion for transfer of venue.

Section 6.11 Counterparts.

This MOU may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.

Section 6.12 Non-Recourse Agreement.

No member, official, employee, agent, or consultant of any party to this MOU shall be personally liable to any other party, or any successor in interest or person claiming by, through or under any party, in the event of any default or breach, or for or on account of any amount which may be or become due, or in any claim, cause or obligation whatsoever under the terms of this MOU.

Section 6.13 Actions by the City and County.

Whenever this MOU calls for or permits the approval, consent, authorization or waiver of the City or County, the approval, consent, authorization, or waiver of the City Manager of the City, or the Assistant County Administrative Officer of the County, shall constitute the approval, consent, authorization or waiver of the City/County without further action of the City Council or Board of Supervisors, including amendments to the MOU, subject to any required State or federal approval, provided that such administrative amendments do not substantively change the overall purpose of this MOU. .

SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
9 of 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: F415BB72-99C9-4EAC-887F-099B022583AC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties as of the Effective Date.

CITY:

CITY OF SALINAS, a municipal corporation
By:

Steven S. Carrigan, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Christopher A. Callihan, Esq. City Attorney
COUNTY:

By:

Nicholas Chiulos, Assistant County Administrative Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Anne K. Brereton, Deputy County Counsel
10 of 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: F415BB72-99C9-4EAC-887F-099B022583AC

EXHIBIT A
11 of 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: F415BB72-99C9-4EAC-887F-099B022583AC 0 100 200
FEET

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MAP PREPARED: 6/10/2021
R:\RMA IT\GIS\Mapping DATA\Map_documents\Public Works\Facilities\County_Owned_Property_ELaurel_Zoom.mxd LEGEND
County Property
Boundary
Developed County
Property
Undeveloped/Vacant
County Property
Land leased/sold to City
of Salinas
Area subject to MOU
Assessor's Tax Parcel
1 INCH EQUALS 63 FEET .

MONTEREY COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY
BASEMAP: GOOGLE ORTHOIMAGERY 6IN 2015
COORDINATE SYSTEM:

NAD 1983 STATEPLANE CALIFORNIA IV FIPS 0404 FEET
*SOURCE: MONTEREY COUNTY PW- REAL PROPERTY &FACILITIES.

NOTE: COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY WITHIN CITY OF SALINAS LIMITS. "
"
G
a
b
i
l
a
n
C
r
e
e
k

VIETNAM VET MEMORIAL

CONVEYED TO
CITY OF SALINAS 5-3-2018
003-851-042-000
003-851-005-000

CITY OF SALINAS

UPPER CARR LAKE
SHARE Center
003-851-043-000

1.87 ACRES
PW E. LAUREL YARD

DEVELOPED AREA

16.24 ACRES

E LAUREL DR

PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
(SIDEWALK)
AREA E
AREA G

3.7 ACRES
AREA A
TOWER
TOWER

EARTHEN SWALE
BASIN

POTENTIAL FUTURE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT

1.7 ACRES

VETERANS
WAY
(COUNTY

DRIVEWAY)

9.4 ACRES

MONTEREY COUNTY
E. LAUREL YARD FACILITIES & SOCCER COMPLEX
003-851-043-000
N a t iv id a d C ree k
IN VICINITY OF 855 E LAUREL DR, SALINAS CA
12 of 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: F415BB72-99C9-4EAC-887F-099B022583AC 525 E. Charleston Road
Request for Offer Response Eden Housing
•

DAPHNE HEIGHTS
SALINAS + MONTEREY COUNTY RFQ
100% AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY RENTAL

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Submitted by
Eden Housing, Inc.

June 24, 2022
Eden Housing DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project

COVER LETTER
Rod Powell, Housing Division Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Salinas
65 West. Alisal St.

Salinas, CA 93901
Melanie Beretti, Principal Planner – Advanced Planning
Housing and Community Development Department
County of Monterey
1441 Schilling Place, South 2nd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
June 24, 2022
Dear Rod Powell and Melanie Beretti:

We are pleased to submit our proposal to develop Daphne Heights at the County-owned site on East Laurel Drive in the City of Salinas. Eden Housing is a 54-year old nonprofit organization with extensive experience performing complex developments through design, construction and management. Beginning with this proposal, we look forward to working together to co-create a community that transforms this unique site into a sustainable, inclusive community that will provide much-needed housing for the City and the region.

When complete, Daphne Heights will transform this challenging site into an oasis for families and farmworkers. As leaders in the development and construction of energyefficient, sustainable homes, Eden is excited to explore innovative ways to deliver a development that is environmentally friendly, economically vibrant, and sensitive to the needs of the community. As currently contemplated, the project would deliver the following key benefits:
• At least 132 units of high-quality, service-enriched Large Family and Farmworker housing on the 5 acres contemplated in the RFQ, with the opportunity to expand to 180 units with the addition of more available County land • A tangible sense of place on this picturesque site, including connections to local trails and a network of open space across the proposed new community. • An opportunity to collaborate on the project vision with governmental stakeholders and the community at large
Eden Housing DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Eden is uniquely qualified to take on the Laurel Drive site. Eden Housing, as one of California’s largest and oldest nonprofit developers, with a portfolio of over 10,000 affordable units under management, is well versed in complex financing structures and the nuances of affordable housing and multi-phase projects.

Eden has an unsurpassed track record of partnering with cities and other public agencies on the disposition and development of vibrant communities on public land parcels. As described further in the enclosed proposal, Eden has partnered with government entities on numerous complex redevelopment projects over the past 5 years, as well as many more in years prior. Eden Housing has no conflicts of interest related to working with the City and County.

Any questions concerning the proposal may be directed to Louis Liss at [email protected] or 510-363-2574.

Respectfully submitted,
Andrea Osgood
Senior Vice President of Real Estate Development
Eden Housing, Inc.
22645 Grand Street, Hayward, CA 94541
[email protected]
(510) 247-8103
Eden Housing
1 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project

DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY RENTAL

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

CONTENTS

1. Qualifications 5

2. Experience 23

3. Project Description and Plan 48

4. Project Financing and Schedule 56

ATTACHMENTS
Real Estate Owned – Eden Housing
Eden Housing
2 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project

1. QUALIFICATIONS
Services Offered by the Development
Team
Eden Housing, with the support of
Dahlin Group, is pleased to submit this
response to the Request for
Qualifications for a 100% affordable
housing development at the East Laurel
Drive site in Salinas. As one of the state’s
largest non-profit affordable housing
developers, we are well poised to deliver
all the services required to bring this
marquis affordable housing community
to fruition, and once built, to keep it
looking like it did on day one. Eden
proposes to offer the following services:
• Project development feasibility analysis to determine the phasing, product type and target population that will best meet the City and County’s needs while remaining deliverable in the current (and potential future) financing environment
• All required design services, delivered by Dahlin Group, from the Concept Design phase all the way through Construction Documents and Construction Administration
• Securing all required environmental, planning and building approvals, including but not limited to CEQA clearance, zoning approvals and building permits • Community outreach services to ensure key stakeholders have an opportunity to provide feedback on the project’s design
• Assembling all required project financing from various funding sources, and providing requisite guarantees to deliver the project
• Providing predevelopment financing required in excess of the capacity available through the City and/or County
• Project construction through a qualified and reputable general contractor who will meet all required labor, safety, and quality standards • Lease-up and long-term management of the project, including developing and implementing an appropriate resident services plan that meets resident needs • Long-term partnership with the City and County to replicate this success and support future affordable housing endeavors.

Eden Housing
3 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
About Eden Housing
Eden Housing is one of the oldest and most experienced affordable housing non-profit organizations in California and is based in Hayward. Since our inception in 1968 (53 years in operation), Eden has developed, acquired, or rehabilitated more than 11,400 affordable units and currently provides homes to more than 24,000 lower-income residents. As a mission-driven non-profit, we serve low- and moderate-income families, seniors, and people living with disabilities. Incomes of our residents typically range from 20% to 60% of the area median income.

Eden’s work goes beyond building high quality buildings, as we strive to create strong communities for the residents who live in our housing and a permanently affordable, high-quality asset for the cities we partner with. Under the Eden Housing umbrella, Eden Housing Management, Inc. (EHMI) provides quality onsite management and maintenance of our affordable homes, and Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc. (EHRSI) offers free onsite support services and programs to help ensure our residents succeed.

EHMI and EHRSI often receive commendations from our partners who know and see firsthand the work we do – including city staff, neighbors, police departments, and financial investors.

Together, the integrated company brings a combined package of experience and expertise which covers the spectrum of activities involved in developing, owning, managing, and servicing a high-quality housing development. This combined effort assures that the quality design and construction of the project is preserved through the careful long-term maintenance of the property and ongoing care and service to residents.

Throughout Eden’s 54-year history, Eden has been actively adapting to and influencing the affordable housing industry in California. We strive to shape housing policy every year and innovate new financing structures with every project to ensure the long-term success of our properties, and in turn, our residents. Eden Housing was the first developer in the State of California to receive tax credits – for our 54-unit Cypress Glen affordable family housing development – and we have been continually successful at acquiring 9% and 4% tax credit allocations for our projects.

Eden Housing
4 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Eden’s pipeline has grown and we continue to add to California’s inventory of affordable housing as housing costs reach a critical point in our history. We are highly experienced in obtaining affordable housing financing through HUD and HCD, as well as local housing authority, county, and city resources. We recognize that our success rests largely on our partnerships with local governments and community organizations – from early local project approvals to long term resident services – and seek to continually strengthen these relationships.

Eden Housing has nearly 500 employees, and its main office is in Hayward, CA. Eden is consistently named one of the Top 50 affordable housing companies in the nation by Affordable Housing Finance Magazine, the leading national publication that ranks and reviews affordable housing.

Eden Housing Management, Inc.

Eden Housing Management, Inc. (EHMI) is the property management non-profit affiliate of Eden Housing and manages the properties developed and owned by Eden Housing.

EHMI was established in 1984 and has 34 years of experience in the field of affordable housing management, currently managing almost 10,000 units across over 140 properties.

The EHMI management model focuses on three main pillars:

1. Focus and expertise in affordable housing
First and foremost, Eden Housing Management is a non-profit management company that specializes in affordable housing. We recognize and appreciate the many ways that affordable housing is unique and tailor our operations to best address the needs of the populations we serve and the complex compliance required.

Eden Housing properties are financed with a multitude of affordable housing sources, including a wide range of US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds, California Housing and Community Development (HCD) funds, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, redevelopment agency funds, and conventional mortgages. EHMI is well-versed in the complex compliance required for the variety of affordable housing financing and maintains excellent relationships with these federal, state, and local government agencies and commercial lenders and investors. Through careful attention to concerns as they arise, strong communication, and consistently sound managerial practices, EHMI far exceeds management industry standards and maintains a portfolio-wide vacancy rate of 1 percent.

2. Integrated model with development, operations, and resident services Throughout our properties, we have seen the benefits of integrating development, property management, and resident services under the Eden Housing umbrella.

Keeping developments within the same organization allows for a seamless transition Eden Housing
5 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
between development and property management, as well as a high caliber of communication between property management and resident services on a regular basis. Other advantages of the integrated model include:

Property operations and resident
services staff provide invaluable insight
to the development process, as they see
first-hand how properties operate and
building systems and materials age over
time. Additionally, asset management
and accounting staff acutely understand
property financials over the lifetime of a
development. As such, each new
construction and rehab project
continues to build on – and benefits from
– the expertise and cross-pollination of
ideas among the Eden departments.

As we have ramped up our rehabilitation work at occupied properties, effective communication between development, operations, and resident services has been paramount. Eden staff from these departments communicate on a daily basis as needed to ensure the work is going smoothly and residents and staff are kept informed.

Additionally, representatives from these departments hold recurring weekly meetings to check in on current issues and progress.

Eden Housing management and resident services work in tandem to effectively manage our properties and support our residents. One example of such collaboration is National Night Out, an annual event that brings residents, staff, neighbors, the police department, and elected officials together to celebrate community relationships as well as improve neighborhood safety. Property management and resident services staff work closely together to put on these events, and in 2015 and 2016, National Night Out was celebrated at all Eden properties, with 52 events and more than 4,000 residents participating.

3. Commitment to sustainability
We recognize that how we operate our buildings has a direct impact on the health of the environment, of our residents, and of property finances. As such, Eden is dedicated to environmental responsibility and has incorporated this commitment into its everyday operations. In 2009, Eden launched a comprehensive green initiative to lower usage and operating expenses for water, electricity, gas, and trash. We performed utility audits at 100 percent of our properties, engaged in comprehensive capital planning, and leveraged more than $10 million to green our portfolio. Our efforts included retrofitting 27 properties for solar systems, replacing low flow fixture replacements, and resident education programs and trainings.

Since that time, Eden has continued to closely monitor utility usage at all our properties and seek new ways to improve utility efficiency. We have partnered with a third party service to monitor our energy and water usage at each property, analyze the data, and Eden Housing
6 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
identify key targets for usage reduction. In 2015, we reduced our water usage by 20% across the portfolio.

To further our green efforts and ensure continued progress, Eden has an interdepartmental Green Steering Committee (GSC), which is responsible for Eden’s green strategic planning efforts. The GSC has played an instrumental role in executing all of our green initiative activities, including training modules for staff and residents and the creation of Eden’s Operations and Maintenance Manual. One of our main goals is to keep our green education goals on the forefront to encourage positive green behavior.

Our committee meets bi-weekly and is a resource for all staff on an on-going basis.

Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc.

Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc. (EHRSI) was established in 1995 as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit affiliate of Eden Housing, Inc. to provide resident services programming to properties in the Eden Housing portfolio. EHRSI provides a wide range of services and enrichment programs designed to meet the needs of our diverse resident population.

We believe that housing is a foundation for life change. Our goal is for families is to create pathways out of poverty by providing them with housing stability and programming to help them reach their goals. For seniors and special needs, including homeless populations, Eden’s goal is to provide a place to age with dignity in their own home. We strive to inspire hope by providing high-quality, relevant, and impactful service coordination and program offerings that create stability and a path to economic empowerment for residents.

Eden’s portfolio includes 142
managed properties of which 25
(17%) include units for the
homeless population. For all
sites, services are organized
around six core areas of focus
including housing stability,
education, health & wellness,
economic empowerment,
community engagement, and
technology access. Services are
client-focused and respond to
the specific needs of each
housing community. We have
established goals for each of the
focus areas as follows.

Eden Housing
7 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Services range from offering one-on-one support to providing workshops and hosting community- wide events. There are three primary levels of services coordination which include an on-site Resident Services Coordinator and/or Case Management, special programs only such as an afterschool program or technology training, or access to an Information and Referral Hotline staffed during regular business hours.

EHRSI’s model of service delivery is unique in that we utilize in-house paid staff members as well as contract with other third-party providers to provide quality services.

EHRSI currently contracts with over a dozen third party service providers and has an inhouse Director of Community Partnerships to oversee and manage those relationships.

EHRSI Primary Goals
Focus Area
Seniors &
Households
with Special Needs
Families
Housing
Stability
Maintain their housing for
the remainder of their life.

Remain housed until enough resources
are accumulated to successfully transition
into less
subsidized housing.

Economic
Empowerment
Maintain existing
income/assets and increase
income when possible by
accessing available financial
benefits and taking
advantage of discount
programs.

Increase assets and income, access
available financial benefits, and reduce
debt.

Education
Improve their ability to
navigate the systems
affecting their life (health
care, social security,
transportation, etc.)
(Adults) Improve their knowledge and
ability to find employment and increase
their ability to advance in their career.
(Children) Improve their educational outcomes and trajectory through participation in quality early childhood,
afterschool & youth programs. (Parents)
Improve their ability to advocate for their
children in school and be engaged in their
child’s educational development.

Health &
Wellness
Increase their knowledge of access to health care systems, preventative health measures, nutrition, and mental health resources.

Community
Engagement
Improve community participation and engagement within the property and with the larger community and develop residents to be advocates and leaders in their community.

Technology
Access
Improve their understanding of how to utilize technology to achieve self-identified goals
and increase access to the internet.

Eden Housing
8 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Additionally, EHRSI contracts with organizations to provide special programs to sites including the Boys and Girls Clubs and Second Harvest Food Bank.

We seek to partner with local experienced providers whenever possible, whether through contractual relationships or through memorandums of understanding. EHRSI works with a large range of local community service partners to offer programs, workshops, and presentations to our residents on topics related to the six focus areas.

We believe it is critical to integrate our services with services currently provided in the larger community and to help our residents make those connections to ensure a successful transition out of our housing for households where that is appropriate.

For projects in Eden’s portfolio that serve special needs populations such as veterans, individuals with disabilities, and households exiting homelessness, EHRSI provides comprehensive, culturally specific services either through direct service or by contracting with a third-party service provider. These services are flexible and responsible to individual resident needs, but can include case management, crisis management for substance use disorders, mediation services, and housing success services, including helping residents to understand lease obligations and house rules.

EHRSI has experience coordinating with providers such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and County Departments of Mental/Behavioral Health. Eden’s Associate Director of Supportive Housing manages these projects.

EHRSI has experience both beginning services at new properties as well as coming in to provide services at existing properties. In each instance, we take the time to evaluate the needs of the residents by utilizing resident assessments and community meetings. From there, a menu of services is created and offered to residents focusing on the goals outlined above for the six core focus areas. Our staff and partners work hand-in-hand to provide the best programming and services available to residents to help them maintain their housing and reach for their dreams.

Eden Housing
9 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Eden Housing’s Equity Statement
Since our founding in 1968, Eden Housing has been committed to building and preserving a home for everyone in need. We have a responsibility to address structural racism in our communities through our work in housing. The following equity statement outlines our commitment.

We advocate to eliminate the effects of racist, exclusionary land use policy and housing discrimination. We value racially and economically diverse communities because they are essential to our collective success.

We build inclusive, high-quality, well-designed, affordable housing throughout California. We do this because everyone has a right to live in safe, thriving neighborhoods with access to quality education and employment opportunities.

We believe that access to resident services and amenities allows people to live with dignity, experience lifelong growth, and build financial security. We will apply an equity lens to our partnerships, programs, and supply chain to acknowledge that the opportunities we provide can be a pathway to economic success for people who have encountered the most significant barriers.

We celebrate our differences and strive to create change for good. We hire people who embody and champion the Eden Housing brand and mission.

We value the unique perspective that derives from richly diverse residents and employees. We pledge to engage and elevate the voices of all cultures and backgrounds to increase our efficacy and understanding.

We promise to do our part. We promise to be mindful and consistent.

We commit to scrutinize and improve our practices, policies, and programs. We will continue to increase our social awareness and ability to understand, appreciate and interact with people from different cultures and belief systems. We will deliver with integrity, champion our people, build enduring partnerships, and commit for the long haul.

We challenge our partners to join with us in the fight to end racist policies and practices in the housing industry. Together, our advocacy and concrete actions will help us change the world one corner at a time.

Equity Statement
Since our founding in 1968, Eden Housing has been committed to building and preserving a home for everyone in need. We have a responsibility to address structural racism in our communities through our work in housing. The following equity statement outlines our commitment.

We celebrate our differences and strive to create change for good. We hire people who embody and champion the Eden Housing brand and mission.

We promise to do our part. We promise to be mindful and consistent.

Eden Housing
10 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
About Dahlin Group
DAHLIN is a diverse architecture and planning firm of 150+ multicultural professionals working with developers, municipalities and communities on various types of affordable housing projects. From four offices in California, an office in Bellevue, Washington, and two offices in the People’s Republic of China, we provide these services globally.

We successfully support affordable housing projects by looking beyond the site itself to the neighborhood and the greater community around it, becoming an advocate for the people the project will impact. By listening first and designing second, we match our expertise with their expectations and goals to build community consensus on the front end, workshopping towards a project design that will foster community for decades to come. Our design solutions are innovative, real and achievable. Our people are passionate about creating places that promote human fulfillment and well-being.

Passion for Place® is evident in all we do—whether we are working with a developer to entitle and deliver a new affordable mixed-use community, developing a supportive housing community that provides safe, clean, quality housing for its residents, or rehabilitating an existing community.

Since 1976, we have been committed to excellence in design—best demonstrated through our long-term client relationships and by our award- winning, financially successful, and sustainable design solutions.

Eden Housing’s Monteverde Senior Aparments | Orinda, CA | Designed by DAHLIN Eden Housing
11 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Community-Focused Design
DAHLIN’s commitment to designing spaces with construction efficiency and cost effective materials while looking for opportunities to create communities that support a sense of belonging is a prerequisite for affordable housing clients.

While it can be a common misconception that “affordable housing” means compromising with small, less livable apartments built with inexpensive materials, often the opposite is true.

Small units actually necessitate a focus on design for living efficiency as a key to the success of the overall project and livability for residents.

The attention to detail that would be expected of a well-appointed, market-rate project, is even more relevant when creating a community that will be operated and managed with an expectation for longevity and maintenance efficiency. As a result, building owners and operators, as well as residents, are satisfied by a design that succeeds in supporting a cohesive community.

Cross-Pollination: Community Serving Projects
Our holistic approach to development of affordable housing communities is complemented by our expertise in planning, programming and design of community serving projects, combined with our knowledge of commercial, retail and hospitality design. The cross pollination better equips us to develop more creative design solutions. We know the materials and construction techniques to create memorable buildings while being critically conscious of cost and ongoing maintenance requirements. We understand how mixed-uses relate to create a sense of place and community that brings people together, meeting the needs of multiple user groups now with adaptability for future needs.

Eden Housing’s Hayward Senior Apartments | Hayward, CA | Designed by DAHLIN Eden Housing
12 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Answering Not in My Backyard Reactions
DAHLIN helps project owners articulate their vision
and generate acceptance for their projects
throughout the entire entitlement process. We have
learned never to assume the public will embrace a
project—even those that may seem to be an obvious
benefit
to the neighboring community.

We have been in the trenches of community outreach
alongside our clients so many times we can discern
the underlying concerns of objections even when
they are not being said in so many words. Then, we
imagine the possibilities and develop creative
solutions to feasibly address and overcome
objections, keeping in mind innovative flairs that set
apart new developments.

ENGAGEMENT
Listening
The stakeholders tell all—
community goals and aspirations
Outlook
Brainstorm with an open mind
from outreach exchanges
Solutions
Translators of community visions
into functional realities
Eden Housing
13 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Project Management, Structure and
Organization Chart
The proposed project will be developed, owned and managed by Eden Housing and its affiliates. During the development phase, the project will be overseen by a project manager, who will be supervised by an Associate Director or above, with regular input from department and corporate leadership. Eden strives to have a single project point of contact who has the company’s full support on each project element. More details on project staffing are in the experience section.

The proposed project ownership structure can be illustrated as specified below. It is anticipated that the project will be owned by a tax credit limited partnership, as is customary in projects of this nature., currently shown as a placeholder entity. The Placeholder entity is replaced with a tax credit equity investor at the financing closing milestone. Eden Housing, Inc. will provide all necessary completion and financing guarantees for this project, as we do on all our projects. Eden has a strong balance sheet, and providing such guarantees is a matter of course for our organization. Dahlin Group will contract directly with Eden Housing, Inc. initially and then will contract with the limited partnership after it has been formed. Each independent phase would be owned by its own partnership, and staff would ensure that each ownership entity is assigned the required rights and responsibilities it needs to bring on an equity investor and close its financing.

Eden Housing
14 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Project Team Resumes
Linda Mandolini
President | Eden Housing
Ms. Mandolini has served Eden Housing as a Project Developer, as Director of Real Estate Development, and since 2001, as Executive Director and President. She is guided in her work as President by Eden Housing's active volunteer board of directors.

Linda oversees affordable housing production, resident support services, and property management components of the
organization. She actively participates in high level conversations and meetings with City Council members and other decision makers. As a rule, she likes to attend public hearings and other high-profile events to speak on behalf of Eden whenever possible.

Linda is a board member of several local and national affordable housing organizations, listed below. In addition, Linda previously served as a member of the Board of Directors and Chair of the Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California and as a founding Board member and Chair of The Housing Trust of Silicon Valley.

Linda has been honored with the 2016 SF Business Times Forever Influential Honor Roll, 2014 and 2015 SF Business Times "Bay Area's Most Influential Women" award, 2011 SF Business Times "Northern California Real Estate Women of Influence" award, 2011 Affordable Housing Management Association (AHMA) Pioneer Award, and the 2008 East Bay Business Times "Women of Distinction" award.

Education
Wheaton College, BA with honors
Boston University, MBA
Professional Affiliations
Board member – California Housing Consortium
Board member and Vice Chair – National Housing Conference Board member – Enterprise Communities Leadership Council, Advisory Board Member – International Housing Partnership, Steering Committee Member – ULI Workforce Housing Council
Member – Terwilliger Center Advisory Board
Eden Housing
15 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Andrea Osgood
Senior Vice President of
Real Estate Development | Eden Housing
Ms. Osgood joined the Eden Housing Development team in 2008 and currently leads Eden’s new construction and acquisition efforts. She assists with supervision of Development staff, actively participates in early development activities, and provides guidance and expertise throughout the development process.

Since joining Eden, Andrea has developed over 400 new units and overseen the acquisition of nearly 1,400 existing units in six California counties – from Sonoma to San Diego County.

Before her career in affordable housing, Andrea worked as a construction management consultant for Capital Projects of UC Berkeley and was involved in nearly every phase of large rehab and new construction projects – from planning and development through funding and construction. She also gained experience in construction litigation and public contracting as a lead paralegal in the construction group of the San Francisco law firm, Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy.

Education
Pomona College, BA with honors
University of California Los Angeles, MA in Urban Planning Professional Affiliations
Director – Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County (Board Chair) Director – SV@Home (Treasurer)
Eden Housing
16 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Louis Liss
Associate Director of
Real Estate Development | Eden Housing
Mr. Liss originally joined the Eden Housing Development team in 2018 and has worked on both acquisitions and ground-up new construction and projects. Since joining Eden, he has overseen the delivery of 130 units in Alameda, CA in two phases: a 60-unit Senior and Veterans project called Corsair Flats project and a 70- unit Family and Special Needs project called The Starling.

Before working at Eden, Louis got his master’s degrees in city planning and real estate development, during which time he was a teaching assistant in economic development finance and conducted research for the Real Estate Innovation Lab and the Sloan School of Management. His master's thesis examined the economics of adaptive reuse projects, affordable housing and commercial activation in challenging real estate development markets in Massachusetts.

In addition to his work in affordable housing, Louis has held positions in infrastructure and economic development in municipal government at New York City Economic Development Corporation and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.

Education
Washington University in St. Louis, BA summa cum laude
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Master in City Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Master of Science in Real Estate Development Professional Affiliations
Member – Urban Land Institute
Past Steering Committee Member – Emerging Leaders Peer Network, Non-Profit Housing of Northern California
Eden Housing
17 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Kasey Archey
Senior Vice President of
Property Operations | Eden Housing
Ms. Archey brings a wealth of experience and knowledge in the operation and management of multi-family housing to Eden. She comes to Eden from Jerusalem House where, as Program
Manager for Scattered Sites, she oversaw the largest supportive, permanent housing program in the metro Atlanta area for homeless, low-income people living with or affected by HIV/AIDS.

Prior to this role, she was the Grants & Compliance Manager, responsible for the oversight and management of governmental grants for all housing units. She has also held leadership roles in Property Management at Abode Communities and Goldrich and Kest. In addition, she has served on the Board of the Affordable Housing Management Association-Pacific Southwest and is an active and contributing member of the National Affordable Housing Management Association.

Education
Dillard University, Bachelor of Arts
Eden Housing
18 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Anna Gwyn Simpson
Vice President of
Resident Services | Eden Housing
As Vice President of Resident Services, Anna Gwyn oversees all of Eden Housing's resident service programs and staff. Since 1995, Eden Housing has provided a wide range of supportive services and enrichment programs designed to meet the needs of its diverse resident population. Eden Housing provides services directly as well as partners with other community organizations to deliver services.

The comprehensive programs are offered at 100% of Eden’s managed properties. Programs include youth and after-school programs, digital technology and literacy programs, aging in place and independent living programs for older adult seniors, health and wellness programs, and financial literacy programs.

Anna Gwyn has more than 20 years of social service experience with an extensive background in managing social service programs for diverse communities and developing evaluation metrics and measurement tools to articulate program success. Prior to joining Eden Housing, she served as the Interim City Manager for the City of Martinez.

Anna Gwyn has spent most of her career in housing, serving in leadership roles with the Oakland Housing Authority, Citizens Housing Corporation, and Episcopal Community Services of San Diego and Riverside Counties.

She previously served as a Board member of the Executive Board of Directors of the Pacific Southwest Regional Council of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO). She currently serves as a Board member of the Affordable Housing Management Association for Northern California and Hawaii (AHMANCH) in the role of Director of Resident Services.

Education
Colorado College, BA
San Francisco State University, MPA with Honors, Nonprofit Administration emphasis Professional Affiliations
Member – National Association of Redevelopment and Housing Officials Eden Housing
19 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Sean Whitacre, AIA
Principal - Senior Architect | Dahlin Group
Sean Whitacre is a talented and experienced designer,
and problem solver with a wide range of abilities in the field of architecture. He leads our multi-family sector, by delivering an exceptional client experiences. His
commitment to listening to clients and leading the
process has helped DAHLIN to consistently add value
and generate positive outcomes for our clients. In his
over 18 years with DAHLIN, Sean has designed nearly all forms of residential architecture supplemented with,
retail complexes and resorts. His design skills and deep knowledge of code and construction make him a highly valuable resource to developers as he leads our next generation of architects and designers.

Education
Bachelor of Architecture,
California Polytechnic
State University, San Luis
Obispo
Affiliations
American Institute of
Architects
National Council of
Architectural Registration
Boards

PAST PROJECTS
Multifamily + Mixed-Use
The Spencer 68
Kenmore, Washington,
USA Main Street Property
Group
The LINQ Lofts + Flats
Kenmore, Washington,
USA MainStreet Property
Group
The Flyway
Kenmore, Washington,
USA Main Street Property
Group
The Bond
Kenmore, Washington,
USA MainStreet Property
Group
Airway Gardens
San Diego, California, USA
Colrich Communities
The Harlow
San Diego, California, USA
Colrich Communities
Agave at La Floresta
Brea, California, USA The
New Home Company
The Braydon
Napa, California, USA
Fairfield Residential
Company LLC
Azure Apartments
Petaluma, California, USA
Trammell Crow
Enso at Baypointe Station
San Jose, California, USA
Fairfield Residential
Affordable Housing
Nova
Oakland, California, USA
Affirmed Housing
Villas on the Park San
Jose, CA Affirmed
Housing
Alora
San Marcos, California,
USA Affirmed Housing
The Grove
Vista, California, USA
Wakeland Housing
Carlsbad Veterans
Carlsbad, California USA
Affirmed Housing
Eden Housing
20 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Jirair Garabedian, AIA, LEED AP
Senior Associate / Senior Architect | Dahlin Group
Jirair’s collaborative approach in shaping our built
environment allows him to work closely with all stakeholders, including future residents and the larger community,
actively listening to understand their needs. His design approach and problem- solving methodology are rooted in his expertise in leveraging zoning and building code
requirements, taking advantage of both opportunities and constraints, and preparing comprehensive feasibility studies to evaluate highest and best use scenarios.

With over two decades of demonstrated experience in planning, designing and securing entitlements for complex and multi-faceted, private and public sector projects, encompassing a wide variety of typologies, building occupancies, and construction types (Type-I, Type-III, and TypeV), clients benefit from all the lessons learned from problems solved.

He has extensive experience in high-density, transit-oriented, mixed-use, multi-family residential, market rate, affordable, for sale and for rent, and retail development.

Education
Masters, Construction
Engineering &
Management, University
of California, Berkeley
B. Arch, Magna Cum
Laude, Cal Poly Pomona
College of Environmental
Design
Affiliations
Licensed Architect in
California
National Council of
Architectural Registration
Boards

PAST PROJECTS
Senior + Multifamily
Woodland Hills Seniors
Woodland Hills, California,
USA CA Ventures
Firmin Court
Los Angeles, California,
USA The Decro Group
Otay Ranch Affordable
Housing Chula Vista,
California, USA Meta
Housing
Alvarado Specific Plan La
Mesa, California, USA The
Paydar Companies
Desert Marketplace
Apartments
Las Vegas, NV
Warmington Apartment
Communities
Multifamily + Mixed-Use
Allison Avenue Mixed-Use
La Mesa, California, USA
USA Properties
Crowther Avenue MixedUse Placentia, California,
USA USA Properties
Prior to Joining Dahlin
6250 Sunset Mixed Use
Los Angeles, California,
USA Essex Properties
Paragon at Old Town
Monrovia, California, USA
Urban Housing Group
The Village at USC
Los Angeles, California,
USA
USC Real Estate & Capital
Construction Group
Central Park West
Eden Housing
21 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Ritu Raj Sharma, AICP, LEED AP
Principal / Senior Planner | Dahlin Group
Ritu Raj Sharma is a dynamic urban designer with over 16 years of planning, urban design and architectural
experience working with communities, private developers and public agencies. As leader of the planning team, he provides design and planning expertise on a wide scale of planning projects, including large master plans, urban
mixed-use projects, streetscape plans, and design
guidelines, encompassing issues of equity, community
and urban design and open space.

Ritu Raj’s projects are focused on placemaking, context sensitive design and creating consensus in the communities he works in. His familiarity with building typologies and densities, ability to convey issues of scale and mass, and knowledge of building and municipal codes brings rigor to the guidelines and standards he is involved with. His extensive involvement in these various planning projects spans the entire project lifecycle.

Through years of seeing numerous projects through from start to finish, Ritu Raj has developed a holistic perspective on the planning process, from which he actively draws insights for creating innovative planning and development strategies for better communities with a strong focus on sustainability. Several of these projects have received awards and industry recognition, such as the Watson Ranch Specific Plan in American Canyon, the Duarte Station TOD Specific Plan, the University Villages Specific Plan and the Villages of Black Diamond Master Plan.

Education
Masters, Urban Planning,
University of Michigan
BA, Architecture,
Jadavpur University, India
Affiliations
American Planning
Association
Urban Land Institute
SPUR
Council of Architecture,
India

PAST PROJECTS
Planning
Vacaville Residential
Standards Update
Vacaville, California, USA
City of Vacaville
Natomas Joint Vision Area
Master Plan Sacramento,
California, USA
Brookfield Land
Watson Ranch Specific
Plan American Canyon,
California, USA McGrath
Properties
Amoruso Ranch Specific
Plan Roseville, California,
USA Brookfield Sunset
LLC
Villages of Black Diamond
Black Diamond,
Washington, USA
YarrowBay
TOD + Infill
Development
Duarte TOD Specific Plan
Duarte, California, USA
City of Duarte
Dumbarton TOD Specific
Plan
Newark, California, USA
City of Newark
Eden Housing
22 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
The Eden Way – High Quality Housing
Development and Management
Eden Housing has a robust system in place to ensure quality control at every stage of the development process. As one of the oldest affordable housing developers in the state, decades of institutional knowledge and growth have enabled Eden to deliver community after community of high-quality affordable housing. -
With a development team of over 30
full-time employees, Eden’s deep
bench enables the organization to
maintain a high level of capacity to
take on new, complex projects at any
time. A high degree of financial
stability as well as Eden’s ability to
recruit and retain talent allows each
project to remain fully staffed. Beyond
the organization’s high capacity,
specific steps are taken to ensure that
the complex process of development
is reviewed by many eyes. This
includes:
• A reporting structure that includes a dedicated project manager per project along with continual, experienced supervision as well as final checks on business decisions by the department’s Senior Vice President.
• A policy and practice of peer review throughout the development process, including:
o Regular Project Risk Reviews by department leadership to help shed light on project threats and opportunities and share knowledge from across the development pipeline
o A process of peer review before major funding application submissions, enabling a multiple-eyes system of mitigating high-stakes clerical errors. o All-hands meetings at major project milestones to maintain an allcompany approach to delivering project success • Longstanding partnerships with the industry’s best experts, including:
o Experienced financial consultants
o Talented legal council with expertise in the intersection of tax credit finance and community development
o Owner’s representation with decades of experience delivering, troubleshooting and maintaining Eden’s high-quality homes Housing is built by people, and twists and turns are inevitable throughout the process.

However, Eden’s processes, resources and talented staff enable a high level of competence and oversight throughout the project’s life cycle, swiftly resolving issues that come up.

Eden Housing
23 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project

2. EXPERIENCE
Past Eden Partnerships with Public
Entities
Eden has a long history of successful partnership with public entities—partnering with government and acting as a go-between for governmental agencies is at the core of our work. The scope of our partnerships with public entities has run the gamut from solely obtaining permits and planning approvals to incorporating local housing bond funding all the way to co-creating projects with public partners on publicly owned land. Below are three examples of projects finished within the past five years that were built hand in hand with governmental partners on publicly owned land. These three examples are just that—only a small sample of the many projects of this nature Eden has delivered over the decades. It’s also worth noting that Eden currently has several projects currently in its development pipeline owned by entities such as the State of California, Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose among others. More details on each project (along with others) are in the Sample Developments section.

Eden Housing
24 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Recently Completed Public Entity Partnership Projects
Corsair Flats (2020) and The Starling (2021)
Location Alameda, CA
Public Agency with
Contract
City of Alameda Community Development
Department
Scope and Contract
Details
In partnership with Alameda Point Partners, the
master developer of the Alameda Point Site A
development, Eden Housing was assigned the
project’s 128-unit low- and very-low income
inclusionary housing obligation. Eden’s responsibilities were to design the project consistent with the area’s
precise plan, obtain design review approvals and
permits, obtain the project’s financing including
highly competitive State sources, and ultimately own
and manage the projects. Eden delivered the homes
in two phases, in 2020 and 2021 respectively. More
details are provided in the Sample Developments
section. The land for each project was conveyed for $1, and the City also contributed funds from its County
bond fund allocation as well as master developer-paid
inclusionary fees into each project ( a grand total of
$6 million).

Reference Contact Info Lisa Maxwell
Community Development Director
City of Alameda
(510) 747-6899 | [email protected]
Eden Housing
25 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Hana Gardens Senior Apartments (2018)
Location El Cerrito, CA
Public Agency with
Contract
City of Alameda Community Development
Department
Scope and Contract
Details
Eden Housing was selected as the developer of a City
of El Cerrito project site immediately adjacent to City Hall after a competitive RFQ process in 2010. Eden
entered into a Disposition Development and Loan
Agreement with the City, which laid out Eden’s
responsibility to develop the site from the design
concept originally proposed in the RFQ to full
completion and operation. The partnership with the
City included a robust community process that
catalyzed the preservation of a historic flower shop
building, a precious asset to the local JapaneseAmerican community. The project’s development straddled the period that included the dissolution of
redevelopment agencies, and Eden worked to bring in
State funding through the then-new Affordable
Housing and Sustainable Communities program,
including funds to improve the Ohlone Greenway
adjacent to the project. The project opened in 2018 as
a Senior project with a 2,000 square foot Senior Center at the ground floor. The City donated the land and
contributed $300,000 in funding to the project
budget.

Reference Contact Info Melanie Mintz
Community Development Director
City of El Cerrito
(510) 215-4339| [email protected]
Eden Housing
26 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Cranes Landing (2018)
Location Lodi, CA
Public Agency with
Contract
City of Alameda Community Development
Department
Scope and Contract
Details
After being selected from a competitive RFQ process, .

Eden entered into a Disposition Development and
Loan Agreement with the City of Lodi to develop a
senior affordable housing project immediately
adjacent to Roget Park, a key neighborhood open
space in the community. Eden’s responsibility was to
design, construct and operate the project,
maintaining affordability levels consistent with the
City’s available funding at the time, which included
HOME, CDBG and HUD Section 202. the site from the
design concept originally proposed in the RFQ to full
completion and operation. Eden completed the
project – 79 units of Senior housing – in 2017, on time and on budget. The City donated the land and
contributed almost $500,000 in funding to the project
budget. Eden also worked with San Joaquin County to
help fund the project.

Reference Contact Info Steve Schwabauer
City Manager
City of Lodi
[email protected] | 209-333-6700
Eden Housing
27 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Project Team Roles
We have identified the key members of the development team below with a short summary of each person’s specific role and location. Additional information on training and professional experience for each person is included in the Resumes section.

Linda Mandolini, President
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 247-8117
Office Location: Hayward, CA
Project Role: Ms. Mandolini oversees affordable housing production, property management, and resident services components of the entire Eden organization. The combined annual operating budget for the three companies is over $50 million, with a staff of over 450 employees. Ms. Mandolini will oversee all high-level business decisions.

Kasey Archey, Senior Vice President, Property Operations Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 247-8114
Office Location: Hayward, CA
Project Role: Ms. Archey is responsible for all property management functions of Eden Housing Management Inc. and also oversees the Services and Asset Management needs of the corporation. Ms. Archey will oversee all property management-related decisions.

Andrea Osgood, Senior Vice President of Real Estate Development Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 247-8103
Office Location: Hayward, CA
Project Role: Ms. Osgood oversees Eden’s development activities. She will lead Eden’s collaboration with the City and County, assist with supervision of development staff, actively participate in early development activities, and will provide guidance and expertise throughout the development process.

Anna Gwyn Simpson, Vice President of Resident Services
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 247-8181
Office Location: Hayward, Ca
Role: Ms. Simpson supervises services staff in implementing and providing EHRSI’s successful programs and services to residents. As well, she continues to build and maintain EHRSI’s strategic partnership with other local service providers and organizations to provide additional health, educational and enrichment programs at our developments. Ms. Simpson will actively participate in the planning and implementation process for the project’s Resident Services plan.

Louis Liss, Associate Director of Real Estate Development Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 363-2574
Office Location: Hayward, CA
Project Role: Mr. Liss will be the lead Project Developer handling the day-to-day responsibilities of the project through predevelopment and construction.

Eden Housing
28 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Sean Whitacre, Principal/Senior Architect, Dahlin Group Email: [email protected]
Phone: 858-350-0544
Office Location: San Diego, CA
Project Role: Mr. Whitacre will be the principal-in-charge of the project, providing strategic input and oversight on major design decisions.

Jirair Garabedian, Senior Associate/Senior Architect, Dahlin Group Email: [email protected]
Phone: (949) 250-7214
Office Location: Irvine, CA
Project Role: Mr. Garabedian will be the day-to-day project manager for the design of the community, handling all elements of the design from concept to construction documents.

Ritu Raj Sharma, Principal/Senior Planner, Dahlin Group Email: [email protected]
Phone: (925) 251-7297
Office Location: Pleasanton, CA
Project Role: Mr. Sharma will provide input on the project’s planning process and context, helping the design team to tailor the project to meet local policy and planning goals.

Last Ten Years of Project Completions
Eden Housing’s robust development pipeline
has enabled the team to open (and re-open
after renovation) numerous projects in the last
decade, with many more to follow in the
coming years. Below is a list of the projects that
completed new construction in the past ten
years. A similarly large number of projects have
been substantially renovated and acquired
during this same period but are not included in
this list. Eden’s full Real Estate Owned schedule
is included as an attachment to this response.

Project
Year
Completed Units Location
Loro Landing 2022 62 San Leandro
The Starling 2022 70 Alameda
Reilly Station 2021 61 Fremont
Eden Housing
29 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Project
Year
Completed Units Location
Corsair Flats 2020 60 Alameda
Hana Gardens 2018 63 El Cerrito
Pauline Weaver 2018 100 Fremont
Miraflores 2018 80 Richmond
Valor Crossing 2017 66 Dublin
Cranes Landing 2017 80 Lodi
Alta Mira 2016 151 Hayward
Camphora Apartments 2016 44 Soledad
Studio 819 Apartments 2015 49 Mountain View
Weinreb Place 2015 22 Hayward
University Village
Apartments
2014 108 Marina
Ford Road Plaza 2014 75 San Jose
Monteverde 2014 67 Orinda
Belle Terre 2014 46 Lafayette
Monterey Villa 2013 20 San Jose
Wexford Way 2013 131 Dublin
Warner Creek 2013 61 Novato
801 Alma 2013 50 Palo Alto
Cottonwood Place 2012 98 Fremont
Carlow Court 2012 50 Dublin
Eden Housing
30 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Sample Developments
Miraflores Senior Apartments
150 S. 45th Street, Richmond | Affordable Senior Housing Project Name Miraflores Senior Apartments
Project Location 150 S. 45th Street, Richmond, CA 94804 Construction Schedule Started in February 2017
Completed in May 2018
Development Cost $40,100,000
Lot Size and Density 1.56 acres; 51.2 dwelling units/acre Building Areas 70,143 SF of residential space
Units 80 affordable rental apartments
79 1-bedroom senior units
1 2-bedroom manager’s unit
Incomes 30-45% of AMI
Developer Eden Housing, Inc. and
Community Housing Development Corporation
Architect HKIT Architects
Contractor James E. RobertsObayashi Corp.

Property Operations Eden Housing Management Inc.

Eden Housing Resident Services Inc.

Eden Housing
31 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Overview: Eden Housing partnered with another non-profit, the Community Housing Development Corporation of North Richmond, to provide 79 new affordable senior rental apartments along with a number of community benefits including a new park. More than 15 years in the making, Miraflores Senior is a testament to the commitment of the Development Team and the City of Richmond to transform a 14-acre brownfield site and former flower nurseries into a new, vibrant community. The property serves very low and extremely low-income seniors in Contra Costa County with incomes are or below 30%- 45% of the area median income.

Placemaking and Amenities: Miraflores Senior Apartments includes a community room with a kitchen, a common courtyard with BBQs and community gardens, a computer lab, and bike storage. The design articulates a Spanish architectural style and sets a high design bar for future
development of the former
nursey site.

In addition to the affordable
housing, Eden was also able
to help the City secure
funding required to help build
a new public park that honors
the history of the JapaneseAmerican flower industry. The park is located to the east of
the project and provides a
buffer to the Freeway. In
addition, the project was able
to help build new bicycle and
pedestrian paths that connect
the Park Plaza community to
the Richmond Greenway and
the McDonald Avenue
Commercial District. The
funding that made this
possible was from the State’s
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
(AHSC) program and was
secured in the inaugural round of this program.

Public Private Partnership: Eden worked closely with the City of Richmond to design, develop and finance a new park and connecting bicycle and pedestrian connections to the park from the housing development. Eden also worked closely California HCD on the funding of these improvements.

Parking and Transportation Demand Management: The project includes 70 total surface parking spaces, with some provided on-site (32) and some on-street (38) which Eden Housing
32 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
represents a total parking ratio of 0.875 spaces per unit. The off-street (on-site) ratio is 0.4 spaces per unit. Eden’s experience developing senior properties has shown us this is amount meets the demand of the senior population.

A transit pass program provides a minimum of 1 AC Transit pass to each residential unit at the facility. The development’s operating funds pay for the cost of these passes for the first three years of operations, and after Year 3, the project will cover half of the cost of each pass and the resident will be asked to cover the other half. At $10 a month per pass, the cost for residents is 90% less than the regular price for a monthly pass.

Financing: Miraflores was financed using 4% tax credits and tax-exempt bonds. In addition, the project includes significant funding from two state level programs (AHSC and an Infill Grant), project-based vouchers, a small loan from the City and Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco Affordable Housing Program (AHP) loan. Wells Fargo serves as the project’s tax credit equity investor as well as construction lender. The California Community Reinvestment Corporation holds the first mortgage.

Funding Sources Type/Progra
m
Phase Total
Dollars
California Community
Reinvestment Corporation
Perm Loan Perm $8,965,000
Wells Fargo 9% Equity Perm $17,216,777
HCD AHSC Soft Loan Perm $5,077,558
HCD Infill Grant Grant Perm $3,312,544
City of Richmond Soft Loan Construction/P
erm
$2,869,059
Deferred Developer Fee Deferred Perm $1,915,906
AHP Soft Loan Perm $790,000
Total $40,146,84
4 Community Outreach: Miraflores Senior was part of a larger plan to redevelop several former nurseries and took many years of community outreach and environmental cleanup before construction could commence. Eden Housing, together with the City, helped lead an extensive community outreach and entitlement process that also included preparation of an EIR. Because a significant component of the project involved extensive environmental cleanup; Eden, CHDC and the City held numerous meetings to explain the scope of the clean‐up and solicited input regarding community concerns. In addition to the environmental work, the community was also interested in preserving some of the history of the former uses on the site. Eden met multiple times with the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee and ultimately created a plan to honor the site’s history as a Japanese-American nursery by preserving and re-using some of the old greenhouse structures, as well as the water tower and tank, and two original family homes. As the entitlement process continued, Eden and CHDC held several design charettes with the wider community and met with key neighborhood groups such as Eden Housing
33 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
the Park Plaza Neighborhood Council, the Laurel Park Neighborhood Council, and the Pullman Neighborhood Council.

Green/Sustainable Features: The project scored 150
points in the GreenPoint Rated program (Platinum
level) and has several green features including solar
photovoltaic panels and solar thermal system to
offset the common area gas usage and electrical
load. The landscaping is drought resistant and smart
timers control the irrigation systems to prevent over
watering of plants. Bioswales enhance natural
drainage of water on-site rather than into the storm
water system. Inside the building, low VOC paints
improve indoor air quality, high efficiency light
fixtures and Energy Star appliances reduce energy
consumption, and low flow toilets and showerheads
reduce water consumption.

Resident Support Services: An integral part to each
Eden community is providing residents with serviceenriched housing options allowing seniors to live independently and age-in-place. Eden Housing
Resident Services, Inc. (EHRSI), also an affiliate of
Eden, provides a variety of services to the residents
which include dedicated service coordination and
individualized one-on-one support, adult education opportunities, health and wellness classes, and community engagement activities.

References:

Alan Wolken, (former) Director of the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency | 510-307-8137 and 707-410-6299 | [email protected] and awolken@solutionsmrg.com Jeff Bennett, Senior Vice President, Wells Fargo | (415) 396-0966 Brian Johnston, HCD | (916) 263-6108 | [email protected] Eden Housing
34 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Hana Gardens Senior Apartments
10860 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito | Affordable Senior Housing Project Name Hana Gardens Senior Apartments
Project Location 10860 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA Construction Schedule Started in
Completed in 2018
Development Cost $33,400,000
Lot Size and Density 0.96 acres; 65 dwelling units/acre Building Areas 53,400 SF of residential space
2,000 SF of commercial space
Units 63 affordable rental apartments
62 1-bedroom senior rental units
1 2-bedroom manager’s unit
Incomes 30-50% of AMI
Developer Eden Housing, Inc.

Architect Van Meter Williams Pollack Architects
Contractor Midstate Construction
Ground Lease None
Overview: Hana Gardens Senior Apartments is a 63-unit development of new affordable senior rental housing in El Cerrito, California, directly adjacent to City Hall. The development includes two buildings: a four-story, wood-frame structure and a pre- Eden Housing
35 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
existing 900 SF standalone building. The
ground floor frontage of
the four-story building
includes a 2,000 SF
commercial space, which
was leased to the City of
El Cerrito to be used for a
Senior Center. Sixty-two
(62) of the senior
apartment units include
one bedroom, a kitchen,
a living area and full
bathroom averaging
approximately 614
rentable square feet in
area. Fifty percent (50%)
of the units will be built
out to meet ADA
accessibility needs. All
apartments are designed
to allow for access by
persons in wheelchairs,
including all kitchens and
bathrooms.

Placemaking and Amenities: The design follows the principles of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Area Plan, including a high commercial ground floor, a strong articulated urban street presence on San Pablo Avenue, and a beautiful public plaza which serves the local community, visitors and the residents of the senior community as well. In response to feedback from the community, we decided to preserve the existing stone-faced commercial building located at 10848 San Pablo Avenue. Between 1935 and 1965, the building served as the Mabuchi family flower shop and was an integral part of the Japanese American cut flower industry that once thrived throughout Contra Costa County. This history inspired the name of the development, as "hana" is often translated from Japanese into English as "flower." The single-story structure was converted into a community room for Hana Gardens residents.

The plaza is designed to welcome the community and passerby and honors the Japanese-American influence on the flower industry, including historical narrative panels in the plaza and a timeline along the sidewalk. Eden was pleased to partner with the Japanese American Citizens League and the El Cerrito Historical Society on the installation. The development’s design includes two community rooms. One community room opens onto an outdoor courtyard garden with seating while the second Eden Housing
36 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
community room is located in the former flower shop building that was preserved.

Additional community spaces include a computer lab, fitness room and laundry room.

The private courtyard behind the building contains picnic-style seating, benches, community gardens, and extensive bay-friendly landscaping.

Parking and Transportation Demand Management: Located on the transit-rich San Pablo Avenue and within one mile of El Cerrito Del Norte BART station, Hana Gardens is the quintessential transit-oriented development and is perfectly situated for seniors to utilize public transit. Residents will also be provided transit passes at no charge. The nearby transit and the provision of a shuttle/Van/passenger drop off space at the front of the building will provide greater access to transit and other convenient transportation facilities. The project provides 34 parking spaces for residents, which the parking evaluation demonstrated is sufficient for the senior residential needs. The building also includes a bike storage room. In addition, there are two off-street parking spaces for the commercial space.

Hana Gardens is privileged to be one of the first developments to receive state Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) funding. In partnership with the City of El Cerrito, new bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding and amenities has been created on the Ohlone Greenway, a multimodal path connecting the two El Cerrito BART stations.

Eden Housing
37 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Financing: 4% LIHTC, City of El Cerrito Funds and Land Loan, Contra Costa County Funds, HCD Infill Infrastructure Grant, HCD AHSC, AHP, Wells Fargo (construction lender and equity investor), California Community Reinvestment Corporation (permanent lender). The project also received 39 project-based vouchers and 23 RAD vouchers from the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County.

Funding
Sources
Type/Program Phase Total
Dollars
City of El Cerrito Land Donation $3,900,000
City of El Cerrito Soft Loan Predev/Construction
/Perm
$300,000
Contra Costa
County

HOME, CDBG
Loan
Construction/Perm $2,100,000
HCD IIG Grant Construction/Perm $1,399547
HCD AHSC- Loan Perm $5,271,696
HCD AHSC- Grant
transit passes
for 3 years
Perm $22,680
Wells Fargo Equity Construction/Perm $13,267,966
CCRC Perm Loan Perm $6,555,000
FHLBSF –AHP Perm $620,000
Total $30,859,825
Business Relationship with a Public Agency: This project was awarded AHSC funding because it was a transit-oriented development in partnership with the City of El Cerrito.

Eden and El Cerrito worked together to use the funds to enhance the Ohlone Greenway.

To make the project successful, Eden had to work closely with both the California HCD and the City of El Cerrito staff.

Eden Housing
38 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Green/Sustainable Features: Hana
Gardens achieved a gold level Green
Point Rating of 116 points. The building is
outfitted with photovoltaic solar panels
that are estimated to reduce the
common area electric usage by 65% as
well as solar thermal panels that are
estimated to reduce gas consumption by
50%. Bathrooms contain high efficiency
plumbing fixtures and irrigation systems
to minimize water use.

Resident Support Services: Services are
provided to all residents free of charge by
Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc.
(EHRSI), an affiliate of Eden Housing. The
on-site services coordinator provides
referral services to community resources
as well as one-on-one support to address
individual needs, and amongst others,
health and wellness, and skill building
activities.

References:

Melanie Mintz, Community Development Director, City of El Cerrito | (510) 215-4339 | [email protected]
Kara Douglas, Contra Costa County | (925) 674-7880 | [email protected] Jeff Bennett, Senior Vice President, Wells Fargo | (415) 396-0966 Brian Johnston, HCD | (916) 263-6108 | [email protected] Eden Housing
39 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Corsair Flats and The Starling (Alameda Point)
171 West Atlantic Avenue & 170 Coronado Avenue, Alameda, CA Overview: Located at the site of the former Naval Air Station, The Starling (70 units, formerly known as Alameda Point Family) and Corsair Flats (60 units, formerly known as Alameda Point Senior) are among the first buildings completed as part of the larger Alameda Point Site A redevelopment, led by master developer Alameda Point Partners.

Through these two buildings, Eden delivered Site A’s low-income and very low-income housing requirement. Corsair Flats is currently fully occupied, and The Starling is currently in lease-up.

Eden’s Role: Site A at Alameda Point is the City’s first major redevelopment project underway as part of the decades-long vision of redeveloping the former Naval Air Station. A key component of the vision is a substantial affordable component – 128 apartments affordable to low- and very low-income households. The Site A redevelopment includes hundreds of new units of housing, as well as brand new street, utility and transit infrastructure, including a new ferry terminal. Eden was brought onto the Alameda Point Partners team to deliver the vertical development of the affordable component by securing highly competitive state and local subsidies and unlock a unique site. Eden leveraged a land donation and cash contribution with significant funding from Alameda County, California HCD, and the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. While the availability of funding and the result of competitive application Eden Housing
40 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
processes can be unpredictable, Eden has been aggressive in pursuing every available opportunity and maintaining flexibility in the projects’ capital structures.

Placemaking and Amenities: The Starling and Corsair Flats were designed as complementary U-Shapes with three stories of residential units surrounding open courtyards located on top of the at-grade podium parking structure. This design affords each building a safe and private open space environment that is oriented to maximize sunlight and protect each courtyard from prevailing north westerly winds. In between the two communities is a 56’ pedestrian public park, providing visual relief to the fourstory massing and an open space amenity with shaded pedestrian and bicycle pathways.

Parking and Transportation Demand Management: The Starling and Corsair Flats provide a total of 98 parking spaces, all inside the podium levels of each building – 28 spaces in Corsair Flats and 70 spaces in Family. In addition, the community includes a significant commitment to sustainable transportation. The Family building includes a bike room with long-term parking to serve both buildings, and Eden is working with the Alameda Transportation Management Association to provide transit passes for residents.

The larger Site A redevelopment includes a new ferry terminal within walking distance that provides a direct link to San Francisco, and AC Transit Route 96 has been routed through the development and provides service through Alameda and into Oakland.

Green/Sustainable Features: The Starling and Corsair Flats will incorporate innovative green design elements that maximize energy and water efficiency, making use of recycled materials whenever possible. As such, the projects exceed Title 24 energy and resource efficiency thresholds, which provides a healthier home for our residents and improves affordability by minimizing resident's utility costs. The project pursued GreenPoint Rated (GPR) certification through Build It Green, achieving a Platinum rating.

Reference:

Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, Alameda | (510) 747-6899 | [email protected]
Eden Housing
41 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Project Name Corsair Flats
Project Location 171 West Atlantic Avenue, Alameda, CA
Construction Schedule Started March 2019
Completed July 2020
Development Cost $36,200,000
Lot Size and Density .74 acres; 81 dwelling units/acre
Building Areas 73,247 SF of residential space
Units 60 total apartments (including 1 manager’s
unit)
30 units for veterans and people formerly
without homes
Incomes 20 to 60% AMI
Developer Eden Housing, Inc.

Architect KTGY Architects
Contractor James E. Roberts-Obayashi Corp.

Property Operations Eden Housing Management, Inc.

Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc.

Operation Dignity
Financing: Corsair Flats secured highly competitive 9% tax credits under the non-profit homeless assistance set-aside in 2018. By securing 25 Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers and a California Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention loan, the project serves 28 senior veterans who exited homelessness while Eden Housing
42 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
leveraging the operating subsidy as permanent debt. In addition, the project includes an Alameda County A1 Housing Bond Fund loan, a cash contribution from the master developer, and a Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco Affordable Housing Program (AHP) loan. Union Bank serves as the project’s tax credit equity investor as well as construction and permanent lender.

Funding Sources Type/Program Phase Total
Dollars
Union Bank Perm Loan Perm $5,000,000
Union Bank Equity Perm $22,999,997
AHP via Union Bank Soft Loan Perm $590,000
Alameda County A1 Perm $3,000,000
HCD VHHP Perm $3,094,149
Master Developer Sponsor Loan Perm $1,500,000
Total $36,184,146
Corsair Flats | 171 W Atlantic Ave, Alameda | Affordable Senior and Veterans Housing Eden Housing
43 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Project Name The Starling
Project Location 170 Coronado Avenue, Alameda, CA
Construction
Schedule
Construction Start June 2020
Construction Complete November 2021
Development
Cost $57,500,000
Lot Size and
Density 1 acre; 70 dwelling units/acre
Building Areas 100,805 SF of residential space
Units 70 total apartments (including 1 manager’s unit)
21 units for people exiting homelessness
Incomes 20-60% of AMI
Developer Eden Housing, Inc.

Architect KTGY Architects
Property
Operations
Eden Housing Management, Inc.

Abode Services
Eden Housing
44 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Financing: The Starling is financed as a 4% tax credit deal, including additional noncompetitive state tax credits. The project includes a loan from California HCD’s No Place Like Home program, which funds 21 units for people exiting homelessness. 17 units will have Project-based Section 8 Vouchers. In addition, the project includes an Alameda County A1 Housing Bond Fund loan, a cash contribution from the master developer, and a Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco Affordable Housing Program (AHP) loan.

Funding Sources Type/Program Phase Total Dollars
Lender Perm Loan Perm $8,115,000
Investor Equity Perm $27,278,336
AHP Soft Loan Perm $690,000
Alameda County A1 Perm $11,153,038
HCD NPLH Perm $4,285,696
Master Developer Sponsor Loan Perm $1,500,000
Eden Housing Deferred Developer Fee Perm $4,499,522
Total $57,521,592
The Starling | 170 Coronado Ave, Alameda | Affordable Family and Supportive Housing Eden Housing
45 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Cranes Landing
2245 Tienda Drive, Lodi | Affordable Senior Housing
Project Name Cranes Landing
Project Location 2245 Tienda Drive, Lodi
Construction
Schedule
Started in 2016
Completed in 2017
Development Cost $22,700,000
Lot Size and Density 3.39 acres; 23.5 dwelling units/acre Building Areas 59,130 SF of residential space
Units 80 affordable rental apartments
79 1-bedroom senior rental units
1 2-bedroom manager’s unit
Incomes 30-55% of AMI
Developer Eden Housing, Inc.

Architect Pyatok Architects
Contractor Brown Construction
Overview: Cranes Landing is an 80-unit two story building that was carefully designed around two open air courtyards that enable sweeping views of and easy access to the Eden Housing
46 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
adjacent Roget Park. In addition to the nearby park, the community offers its senior residents easy access to a number of other amenities within walking distance including two neighborhood retail centers, Lodi Center and Sunwest Plaza.

The project was completed on time and on budget.

Placemaking and Amenities: The design of the project paid special attention to the adjacency of Lodi’s Roget Park and included seamless connections to the park and lush bioswales along the edge of the property to transition into the Park’s green space.

The design of the project
also includes various
building amenities
meant to allows seniors
to "age in place” -- thus
preventing the need for
people to move from one
facility to another as their
physical capacity
becomes more limited.

Examples of these
features include two
elevators and 5% of units
built out according to
Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards
(UFAS). In addition, 2% of
the units are equipped to
suit the needs of the hearing or visually impaired, and all other units are adaptable for full accessibility and will include accessible features such as installed grab bars at tubs/showers and backing for grab bars at toilets.

Other on-site amenities include a community room with TV lounge, fitness room, computer lab and an outdoor patio.

Eden Housing
47 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Financing: 9% LIHTC, City of Lodi Funds, San Joaquin County Funds, MHSA, AHP, Wells Fargo (construction lender and equity investor).

Funding
Sources
Type/Program Phase Total
Dollars
City of Lodi Soft Loan Predev/Construction
/Perm
$494,536
San Joaquin
County

HOME, CDBG
Loan
Construction/Perm $839,667
FHLBSF –AHP Perm $790,000
Wells Fargo Equity Construction/Perm $19,735,161
Deferred
Developer Fee
Perm $137,685
Total $22,779,609
Resident Support Services: Services are provided to all residents free of charge by Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc. (EHRSI), an affiliate of Eden Housing. The on-site services coordinator provides referral services to community resources as well as one-on-one support to address individual needs, and amongst others, health and wellness, and skill building activities.

Reference: Steve Schwabauer, City Manager. [email protected] Eden Housing
48 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project

3. SITE PLAN AND PROPOSAL
zcould
Eden Housing
49 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Project Overview
The East Laurel Drive site offers a terrific
opportunity to create a marquis
affordable housing development that
can grow in phases and provide a
picturesque hilltop perch for local
families and individuals, particularly
farmworkers participating in the area’s
sprawling agricultural economy. The
Daphne Heights vision presented in this section represents one set of possibilities for the site – a starting point for a project that is co-creating with the City and County, as well as the community. Based on experience, Eden is proposing a site plan that is conducive to phasing, scaled to available financial resources, and designed to keep construction costs manageable.

The site plan proposes investing in preparing the site to take advantage of the large area afforded, emphasizing welcoming landscaping ensconced by efficient, attractive walk-up buildings. Each phase of the project would meet the Large Family project type unit mix of at least 25% 2-beds and 25% 3-beds.

Two scenarios are presented below: the first is a two-phase development of 132 units on 5 acres, approximately the density and project area recommended by staff to take advantage of density bonus and potential CEQA exemptions. The second scenario incorporates additional land that staff suggested could be made available. The additional land is added to the second phase in the first alternative to create a total of 180 units. A summary is below.

Eden welcomes discussion of all the levers that could be pulled to adjust the project’s size and density. More ideas related to project possibilities are in the financing section.

Scenario A Scenario B (Extra Land)
Phase 1
84 Units in 3 Buildings
1 Clubhouse
Portion of Original 5 Ac RFQ
Area
Phase 1
84 Units in 3 Buildings
1 Clubhouse
Portion of Original 5 Ac RFQ
Area
Phase 2
48 Units in 2 Buildings
1 Clubhouse
Portion of Original 5 Ac RFQ
Area
Larger
Phase 2
(Phase 2 and
Phase 3
Areas)
96 Units in 4 Buildings
1-Clubhouse
Portion of Original 5 Ac RFQ
Area + Additional 1.85 Ac
TOTAL 132 Units, 5 Ac TOTAL 180 Units, 6.85 Ac
Eden Housing
50 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Eden Housing
51 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Initial Phase
Phase 1 Overview
Structure Use Size
Building 1 24 Units Residential 19,800 SF
Building 2 24 Units Residential 19,800 SF
Building 3 36 Units Residential 29,400 SF
Clubhouse 1 Management, Community Room 2,500 SF
Outdoor Open Space Recreation, Play Area 19,200 SF
Parking Surface parking @ 1.5 Spaces per Unit 126 Stalls Initial Phase Affordable Unit Mix
Unit Type AMI Level Count Net Rent
1-Bed 30% AMI 10 $512
1-Bed 50% AMI 18 $894
1-Bed 60% AMI 14 $1,084
2-Bed 30% AMI 6 $603
2-Bed 50% AMI 11 $1,061
2-Bed 60% AMI 4 $1,290
3-Bed 30% AMI 6 $686
3-Bed 50 % AMI 11 $1,215
3-Bed 60% AMI 4 $1,479
Total 47% Average 84
Farmworker Units 43
Eden Housing
52 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Scenario A – 48 Units
Phase 2 Overview (Scenario A)
Structure Use Size
Building 4 24 Units Residential 19,800 SF
Building 5 24 Units Residential 19,800 SF
Clubhouse 2 Management, Community Room 1,800 SF
Outdoor Open Space Recreation, Play Area 19,200 SF
Parking Surface parking @ 1.5 Spaces per Unit 72 Stalls Phase 2 Affordable Unit Mix (Scenario A)
Unit Type AMI Level Count Net Rent
1-Bed 30% AMI 10 $512
1-Bed 50% AMI 10 $894
1-Bed 60% AMI 4 $1,084
2-Bed 30% AMI 7 $603
2-Bed 50% AMI 5 $1,061
3-Bed 30% AMI 7 $686
3-Bed 50 % AMI 5 $1,215
Total 41% Average 48
Farmworker Units 25
Eden Housing
53 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Scenario B – 96 Units
Larger Phase 2 Overview (Phase 2 + Optional Phase 3 Areas) Structure Use Size
Building 4 24 Units Residential 19,800 SF
Building 5 24 Units Residential 19,800 SF
Building 6 24 Units Residential 19, 800SF
Building 7 24 Units Residential
Clubhouse 2 Management, Community Room 2,500 SF
Outdoor Open Space Recreation, Play Area 31,800 SF
Parking Surface parking @ 1.5 Spaces per Unit 144 Stalls Larger Phase 2 Affordable Unit Mix (Scenario B)
Unit Type AMI Level Count Net Rent
1-Bed 30% AMI 12 $512
1-Bed 50% AMI 20 $894
1-Bed 60% AMI 16 $1,084
2-Bed 30% AMI 7 $603
2-Bed 50% AMI 12 $1,061
2-Bed 60% AMI 5 $1,290
3-Bed 30% AMI 7 $686
3-Bed 50 % AMI 12 $1,215
3-Bed 60 % AMI 5 $1,479
Total 47% Average 96
Farmworker Units 49
Eden Housing
54 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Project Design Narrative
The proposed site plan and overall design are inspired not only by the City’s rich agricultural heritage but also by the site’s vibrant setting surrounded by open space, parks, soccer fields, recreation trails, and a future track and skate park. The multi-phase community of 180 family and farm-worker apartments is housed in 3-story breezeway-type buildings each with its own communal laundry room, organized around three outdoor recreation and activity areas, two of which (in phases 1 and 2) are anchored by a single-story community building which houses indoor recreation spaces such as community rooms, fitness centers, and after-school activity areas in addition to leasing and management offices and various resident-serving facilities. Outdoor recreation amenities include two tot-lots and various play areas, BBQ’s and communal gathering spaces, open activity areas, as well shaded seating pockets.

In addition to orienting buildings to actively engage the on-site open amenities, the site plan is shaped by existing utilities and constraints including a storm water easement running primarily along a north-south axis, and a sewer line that runs primarily along an east-west axis. This is in addition to observing the required setbacks from the existing power lines overhead, running in a northerly direction in the eastern half of the site. The community is accessible by vehicles from Veteran’s Way, while a second access point is located along Laurel Street for use by emergency vehicles. The existing stormwater drainage swale would be replaced by an underground drainage pipe in order to ensure connectivity of pedestrian and vehicular circulation and maintain an accessible path of travel throughout the site.

The architectural vernacular embraced by this community of one to 3-story buildings is inspired by the utilitarian beauty and simple but striking forms characteristic of agrarian architecture. The proposed building massing and roof forms of the 3-story residential buildings are intended as playful silhouettes articulated by the interplay of shed dormers Eden Housing
55 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
with extended eaves, bay window cantilevers, and sculptural shade elements resulting in a rich variety of roof forms and building elements that engage the ground level. The singlestory community buildings take on a simple but iconic barn form with a prominent central gallery and clerestory windows to promote natural lighting and ventilation.

Materials and textures include exterior cement plaster, board-and-batten siding, and various metal shade elements such as awnings, canopies, and brackets supporting deep overhangs, in addition to prominent gable-end ventilation grills and standing seam metal roofing applied to lower shed roofs. Colors range from whites to neutrals for cement plaster planes to more saturated and vibrant tones applied to siding surfaces.

Eden Housing
56 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project

4. PROJECT FINANCING AND

SCHEDULE
Corporate Financial Capacity and Track Record Securing
Financing
Eden Housing was the first developer in the State of California to receive tax credits and has been continually successful acquiring 9% and 4% tax credit allocations ever since. In the last two years, Eden has closed 15 deals with a variety of debt and equity partners.

Eden has extensive experience with institutional and private financing that includes conventional construction and permanent loans, tax-exempt bonds, and low-income housing tax credits – both the competitive 4% and 9%, and hybrid 4%/9% programs.

Over the past decade, Eden projects have obtained long-term loans totaling over $700,000,000 for its projects. In addition, Eden is currently in construction or in the postconstruction stabilization period on 12 projects across the state of California. The construction-period loans for these projects total $295 million and are with a variety of lenders including JPMorgan Chase, US Bank, Wells Fargo, RaboBank, and Union Bank.

Eden has had a strong operating history, meeting or exceeding its budget for the past 10 years. Eden ended last year with the strongest cash position we have had since our inception over 50 years ago. Eden anticipates maintaining a strong position for the next five years, based on our receivables and development pipeline. We are diversifying and enhancing our revenue base and expect that we will be able to maintain a strong financial position into the future.

Approach to Obtaining Financing for the Project
As noted in the financial capacity section above, Eden has extensive experience with institutional and private financing that includes conventional construction and permanent loans, tax-exempt bonds, and low-income housing tax credits – both the 4% and competitive 9% programs – that is used to finance affordable housing communities.

Each phase of the project are currently underwritten as a 4% execution with soft debt from the City (or County as available) and the State’s Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program and Multifamily Housing Program. We anticipate half of the units will be restricted for Farmworker housing in order to qualify for the Serna program.

Project-Based Vouchers are likely necessary in order to support a practical and competitive unit affordability mix under each state program. Since each component of the project will meet the Large Family housing type, there is flexibility to adjust the target populations and financing strategy to pursue alternative programs – the 9% tax credit program for example. In addition, the project has been designed as Type V Eden Housing
57 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
garden-style walk-up buildings, which helps to limit overall hard cost per unit, offsetting the potentially intensive level of site work required.

A full breakdown of projected sources by phase follows.

Initial Phase / Phase 1 (84 Units)
Permanent
Funding Source
Funding Type Details Total Dollars
City of Salinas Soft Loan Soft costs during Predev $500,000 Local Funding Soft Loan E.g. HOME, CDBG, HAS $3,500,000 CA HCD Soft Loan MHP $7,324,699
CA HCD Sponsor Loan Joe Serna $11,716,463
Limited Partner Equity LIHTC Equity $24,970,270
General Partner Equity Deferred Developer Fee $233,172
General Partner Equity Non-Priority Deferred Fee $4,467,294 Bank Debt Permanent Loan Leveraging PBVs $2,954,232
Total $55,666,760
Permanent Debt: The project includes a permanent mortgage, which is shown in a single tranche that leverages Section 8 overhang. Tenant rents up to restricted AMIs cover operating expenses on this project. We have assumed interest rates consistent with the current market for debt. The project reflects 21 Section 8 vouchers, which are layered on farmworker units restricted at 50% AMI to enable deeper affordability for this target population. As noted above, Eden’s strong track record with conventional lenders will allow the project to get competitive rates and terms for debt financing.

Local Funding: Our underwriting for this phase of the project includes two line items for funding from the City of Salinas. First, we have included the $500,000 noted by City staff as available for soft costs during predevelopment. While it will likely cost several million dollars to bring the project to construction financing close, this initial loan will help Eden support continued feasibility analysis prior to obtaining site control. An additional $3,500,000 is underwritten at construction financing close to help close the project’s funding gap and increase competitiveness for State funds. This source could be offset should other funds become available that are a good fit for the project, particularly County funds. Eden would work closely with the City to determine which funding source – be it CDBG, HOME, ARPA, or HSA– works best for the project and the City.

California HCD Funds: The location of the site in the Salinas Valley makes the project a terrific fit for the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program. This program has recently been dovetailed with the MHP program through the SuperNOFA process, with projects recommended for Serna grants obtaining priority for MHP funds. Both resources would help to close the lion’s share of the project’s funding gap.

Competitiveness for these programs requires the Large Family housing type, a relatively low average affordability, leveraged soft financing and a favorable cost control profile.

Eden Housing
58 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Equity: We have structured this phase as a bondfinanced 4% tax credit execution that includes both Federal and State credits, a structure that Eden has used many times. Though allocation of private activity bonds through CDLAC has grown competitive, Eden’s projects have repeatedly competed favorably in recent years. A key aspect of maximizing tax credit equity will be to structure the project to maximize tax credit eligible basis. Eden has a strong team of counsel and auditors who can assist us to make sure that as much of the project scope as possible can generate tax credits. We have assumed a $0.92 investor pay-in per dollar of Federal tax credits and $0.80 per dollar of State credits, which leaves room for the unpredictable nature of equity pricing. Eden is well regarded by both direct investors and tax credit syndicators and routinely obtains highly competitive pricing on each project.

Deferred Developer Fees: Consistent with the regulations for the 4% tax credit program, this project assumes a net developer fee of $2,200,000 and $233,172 in priority deferred developer fee paid from cash flow in the first 12 years, as is customary. Another $4.5 million is underwritten as non-priority deferred fee or GP capital, which would be paid from Eden’s share of residual receipts. This structure allows the project to maximize eligible basis, which is used to determine the amount of tax credits.

Scenario A/Phase 2 (48 Units)
Permanent
Funding Source
Funding Type Details Total Dollars
Local Funding Soft Loan E.g. HOME, CDBG, HAS $2,400,000 CA HCD Soft Loan MHP $5,914,710
CA HCD Sponsor Loan Joe Serna $6,898,255
Limited Partner Equity LIHTC Equity $15,434,609
General Partner Equity Deferred Developer Fee $303,667
General Partner Equity Non-Priority Deferred Fee $1,762,035 Bank Debt Permanent Loan Leveraging PBVs $2,635,617
Total $35,348,893
Scenario B/Larger Phase 2 (96 Units)
Permanent
Funding Source
Funding Type Details Total Dollars
Local Funding Soft Loan E.g. HOME, CDBG, HAS $3,500,000 CA HCD Soft Loan MHP $8,481,676
CA HCD Sponsor Loan Joe Serna $13,406,800
Limited Partner Equity LIHTC Equity $27,893,862
General Partner Equity Deferred Developer Fee $230,596
General Partner Equity Non-Priority Deferred Fee $5,278,500 Bank Debt Permanent Loan Leveraging PBVs $3,106,490
Total $61,897,926
Eden Housing
59 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Permanent Debt: Each scenario contemplates a similar number of project-based vouchers. Typically, a housing authority may cap the number of vouchers in excess of 25% of the total project units unless the project incorporates Special Needs units. This may be an approach worth considering. In addition, each scenario contemplates similar per-unit operating costs based on Eden’s local comparable properties. However, there may be opportunity to create operating efficiencies between phases.

Local Funding: Similar to the first phase, both scenarios will require local funding in order to help close the project’s financing gap. However, it’s worth noting that the larger project incorporates some economies of scale, stretching fixed transaction costs across a larger number of units. Approximately 50 units is typically Eden’s minimum viable project size.

California HCD Funds: Each scenario contemplates a similar split of Serna and MHP funding to the first phase.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Equity: Both scenarios use similar assumptions to the first phase on LIHTC equity. However, if a smaller second phase were deemed the best path forward, an alternative execution with 9% tax credits could also be worth considering.

Deferred Developer Fees: Each scenario for the second phase shows a similar developer fee structure to the first phase. Eden’s development staff time expended per project tends to be fairly flat across project size until a project is broken into phases.

Phasing and Flexibility Discussion
As noted previously, this proposal and financial sketch of Daphne Heights is merely a starting point and can be easily adapted depending on City and County needs and considerations.

Eden’s team is well equipped to collaborate with our governmental partners and identify pros and cons associated with tweaks to the development program. When selected, any number of the following changes would be wide open for discussion:
• Adjusting the project’s phasing structure to better adapt to funding capacity in current and future years
• Adding density on the site by building above common spaces, considering taller buildings, or considering double-loaded buildings in order to deliver more units or leave more land available for future growth
• Evaluating the cost and benefits of adding elevators
• Reducing density on the site to further control costs or change the character of the project
• Considering adjusting the unit targeting for any or all of the phases to add Special Needs or even Senior units
• Further evaluating the parking ratio and design, evaluating the costs and benefits of features such as tuck-under parking or carports.
• Discuss programming opportunities to activate the site such as a farmer’s market or other uses valuable to residents and the larger community Eden Housing
60 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Project Schedule and Process
Our project schedule produces the first 84 new homes 5 years from developer selection.

The project site has been identified by the
City and County as an opportunity to make
a large dent in the region’s housing
shortage by putting underutilized public
land to good work. It is our understanding
that City staff anticipate working closely
with the developer of this project as they
prepare a general plan update that will
include the project site. In addition, we
understand that the current general plan
designation allows multifamily use with a
Conditional Use Permit, which may be able
to be paired with a CEQA infill exemption for
a project under five acres.

The Scenario A plan for Daphne Heights
would fit into a density bonus permitted
density for the site and would meet the fiveacre benchmark. However, Eden has gained significant experience with additional CEQA
exemptions as well as streamlining
provisions that would enable ministerial
approvals. We have also pursued and
repeatedly succeeded in more traditional
rezoning pathways. If selected, Eden would collaborate closely with the City to determine the most efficient and defensible entitlement process and then take the lead in moving it forward. That said, this does not preclude an extensive community outreach process. Eden would pursue a collaborative process with the community to ensure that the project that is submitted for approval has had the opportunity for community review.

Additionally, but not required to be completed prior to project approval is review under the under National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). NEPA is a financing requirement in the likely event the project uses federal funds and is a six-month process for thirdparty report completion, public review and comment, and state agency approval. In order to obtain the most flexibility in financing, we will pursue this approval process. For the first phase, we are assuming the timelines and milestones below. Many processes can and will occur simultaneously, and some work on the second phase can occur simultaneously with the first.

Eden Housing
61 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
If selected by the City and County, we could kick off community outreach as soon as possible to inform the design efforts early on.

Eden Housing will draw upon half a century of experience with building affordable housing to deliver units as quickly as possible.

Eden Housing has been building affordable housing since 1968. With that comes experience with innovative strategies to accelerate the delivery of units. Some strategies that may be used for this development include:
• Cultivating a proactive and cooperative relationship with the City of Salinas to expedite application processing timelines and ensure the project is scheduled for review in a timely manner.
• Early engagement of a general contractor and key trades during the design process to identify conflicts and efficiencies before construction starts. • Expansion of labor crews at critical points during construction, such as framing and drywalling.
• Utilizing techniques such as prefabrication of wall and floor-ceiling panels off-site.

Phase 1 Schedule
Milestone Start Month/Year End Month/Year
Selection of Developer June 2022 August 2022
Exclusive Negotiations Agreement September 2022 November 2022 Community Outreach and
Concept Design
August 2022 November 2022
Lease Option Agreement November 2022 January 2023
Schematic Design and
Entitlements
December 2022 June 2023
Local and State Gap Funding
Applications and Awards
July 2023 August 2024
Tax Credit Funding Application
and Allocation
August 2024 November 2024
Full Design and Permitting June 2023 October 2024
Finance Closing November 2025 April 2025
Construction April 2025 January 2027
Lease-Up and Stabilization January 2027 October 2027
Eden Housing
62 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project
Phase 2 Schedule
Milestone Start Month/Year End Month/Year
Local and State Gap Funding
Applications and Awards
June 2023 August 2025
Tax Credit Funding Application
and Allocation
August 2025 November 2025
Full Design and Permitting June 2023 October 2025
Finance Closing November 2025 April 2026
Construction April 2026 January 2028
Lease-Up and Stabilization January 2028 October 2028
Eden Housing
63 DAPHNE HEIGHTS
100% Affordable Multifamily Rental
Housing Development Project

ATTACHMENT

EDEN HOUSING

REAL ESTATE OWNED

SCHEDULE
Residential Properties County City Placed In
Service
Community
Served
Rentable
Area
Units Occupied % LIHTC
Investor
Eden
Housing
Ownership
Federal/
State
Subsidy
Gross Rental
Revenue
Other
Income
Vacancy Operating
Expenses
NOI Debt Service Reserves
Deposit
Reserve
Withdrawals
NOI After Debt
Service
DSCR Mortgage
Lender
Mortgage
Balance
Due Date for
1st
Mortgage
Soft Debt
Outstanding
Reserve
Balances
Market
Value
Comments
801 Alma Family Apartments (664) Santa Clara Palo Alto 2013 Family 90,434 50 100.0% Enterprise < 1% 548,059 22,156 487 502,999 66,728 22,000 25,000 0 19,728 0 12,904,960 1,057,128 1,482,852Almond Court (564) San Joaquin Manteca 2008 Senior 26,048 40 100.0% 100% HUD 202 319,080 3,367 201 277,841 44,405 0 23,909 0 20,496 0 350,000 258,237 986,769Almond Terrace (304) San Joaquin Manteca 2004 Senior 32,452 50 98.0% 100% HUD 202 334,780 5,486 1,317 311,771 27,178 0 20,823 0 6,355 0 1,980,932 105,911 603,956Altenheim Senior Housing (588) Alameda Oakland 2006 Senior 78,968 93 95.7% Union Bank < 1% 1,114,060 53,574 50,797 857,067 259,771 151,686 79,554 0 28,531 0 6,883,008 673,802 5,772,686Altenheim Senior Housing, Phase II (592) Alameda Oakland 2010 Senior 59,636 81 100.0% Union Bank < 1% HCD 1,262,691 50,105 31,956 648,929 631,912 276,709 48,600 0 306,602 1.94 Bonds 441,155 2026 15,278,773 766,850 14,042,482Arroyo Del Valle (308) Alameda Livermore 1998 Special Needs 6,015 12 100.0% 0% HUD 811 102,939 936 0 99,181 4,694 0 5,928 0 (1,234) 0 0 105,461 104,306 HUD property; budget-based rent increase will be requestedArroyo Vista Apartments (576) Orange Mission Viejo 1995 Family 161,799 156 98.7% Post Buyout 100% Calhfa 2,496,126 21,994 56,697 1,497,938 963,485 758,770 78,000 1,149 127,864 1.15 Calhfa 5,966,562 2036 174,065 221,598 21,410,785 Ashland Village Apartments (560) Alameda San Leandro 2009 Family 179,000 142 97.9% Merritt < 1% HUD/HCD 4,109,934 18,902 38,114 1,599,516 2,491,206 1,056,785 200,000 143,134 1,377,555 1.98 Bonds 8,490,740 2041 10,116,631 1,484,138 55,360,126Aspen Grove (716) Santa Clara Gilroy 1987 Family 24,912 24 95.8% 100% USDA 222,341 13,266 3,515 201,205 30,887 657 17,800 8,488 20,918 1.67 USDA RD 11,779 2040 0 134,078 686,382Belle Terre Senior Apartments (712) Contra Costa Lafayette 2014 Senior 53,934 46 95.7% Union Bank < 1% HCD 1,037,737 7,032 39,585 371,138 634,045 221,715 27,600 0 384,730 2.54 US Bank 2,847,353 2045 10,516,549 759,763 14,089,885Brentwood Senior Commons (316) Contra Costa Brentwood 2006 Senior 60,000 80 93.8% Union Bank < 1% 1,634,976 11,034 70,149 672,155 903,706 131,701 32,800 0 739,205 5.49 CCRC 1,314,940 2037 3,829,221 600,586 20,082,356Brookwood Terrace Santa Clara San Jose 2011 Family 84 97.6% Hudson < 1% 1,815,093 24,312 15,438 536,787 1,287,180 583,573 33,168 0 670,439 2.09 Citibank 6,850,000 2044 8,428,880 585,880 28,604,000Cambrian Center (684) Santa Clara San Jose 2014 Senior 78,183 153 100.0% Bank of America < 1% HUD 236 4,379,746 16,920 21,831 1,251,814 3,123,021 1,512,079 78,030 0 1,532,912 1.96 Citibank 24,373,840 2047 10,138,189 4,821,987 69,400,469 Camphora Apartments (724) Monterey Soledad 2016 Family 48,204 44 100.0% US Bank < 1% HCD 531,564 14,201 286 364,202 181,277 99,043 38,778 0 43,456 1.32 US Bank 648,396 2031 11,140,610 555,518 4,028,377 Carlow Court (640) Alameda Dublin 2012 Senior 27,475 50 100.0% Wells Fargo < 1% 912,095 14,003 8,342 413,738 504,018 301,661 34,079 9,303 177,582 1.50 Citibank (partial assgn to Calhfa) 3,666,724 2031 4,460,692 149,529 11,200,408 Casa De Los Amigos (320) Santa Clara San Jose 1995 Special Needs 15,264 24 100.0% 100% HUD 811 263,415 5,277 5,411 244,358 18,923 0 24,000 0 (5,077) 0 351,429 419,160 420,510 HUD property; budget-based rent increase will be requestedCatalonia (978) Santa Clara San Jose 2018 Family 91,982 50 100.0% RBC < 1% 1,051,283 3,654 3,312 460,346 591,280 352,661 27,798 7,905 218,726 1.55 CCRC 6,197,128 2036 10,503,051 280,636 13,139,553Charles Apartments (992) Monterey Marina 1997 Family 118,233 105 99.9% US Bank < 1% HUD 236 1,146,429 3,199 144,681 684,723 320,224 1,202 0 0 319,022 Construction Loan 0 0 0 7,116,083 Substantial rehabilitation completed in 2020CHHP_Cypress Glen (340) Alameda Hayward 2016 Family 46,752 54 100.0% RBC < 1% HCD 875,767 12,397 12,398 453,629 422,137 245,637 21,600 0 154,900 1.58 Union Bank 4,037,544 2035 6,987,976 749,843 9,380,817 Owned/operated with Harris Court(412) and Huntwood Commons (424)
CHHP_Harris Court (412) Alameda Hayward 2016 Family 19,200 24 100.0% RBC < 1% 327,293 5,588 6,781 209,462 116,639 109,045 9,600 0 (2,007) 0.98 Union Bank 1,794,660 2035 3,410,631 29,623 2,591,968 Owned/operated with Cypress Glen (340) and Huntwood Commons (424) CHHP_Huntwood Commons (424) Alameda Hayward 2016 Family 44,000 40 100.0% RBC < 1% 715,612 5,961 8,315 331,284 381,975 181,949 16,000 0 184,026 1.93 Union Bank 2,991,100 2035 5,241,462 49,372 8,488,326 Owned/operated with Cypress Glen (340) and Harris Court(412)Connell Apartments (974) Santa Clara Gilroy 2018 Family 21,598 28 96.4% CREA < 1% 495,926 8,136 20,022 219,516 264,524 143,757 20,800 4,000 103,967 1.61 CCRC 2,716,307 2035 7,365,786 240,046 5,878,313Coronado Terrace Apartments (980) San Diego San Diego 2018 Family 277,000 312 100.0% US Bank < 1% HUD 202 6,452,024 96,111 13,146 1,971,590 4,563,399 3,195,871 143,000 0 1,224,528 1.37 Citibank 59,401,787 2050 18,005,441 1,870,359 101,408,859Corralitos Creek Apartments (736) Santa Cruz Freedom 2003 Family 56,274 64 98.4% Post Buyout 100% 815,469 26,731 0 567,537 274,662 165,661 57,439 0 51,562 1.23 Calhfa 1,672,688 2035 4,982,777 681,394 6,103,605Corsair Flats (967) Alameda Alameda 2020 Senior 84,939 60 100.0% Union Bank < 1% 553,729 1,611 136,827 205,088 213,425 8,700 0 0 204,725 Construction Loan 0 4,950,000 0 4,742,778 Ground-up construction completed in 2020 Cottonwood Place (568) Alameda Fremont 2012 Senior 62,815 98 100.0% Enterprise < 1% HUD 202 852,275 9,039 622 603,247 257,445 105,003 78,216 0 74,227 0 26,479,739 1,514,294 5,721,004Cranes Landing Apartments (932) San Joaquin Lodi 2017 Senior 67,770 80 97.5% Wells Fargo < 1% Calhfa 519,164 29,593 1,937 476,672 70,148 3,108 40,000 0 27,040 0 3,133,418 1,495,955 1,558,842Crest Avenue Apartments (740) Santa Clara Morgan Hill 2012 Family 42,729 50 100.0% Alliant < 1% 792,609 9,937 2,232 424,444 375,870 171,586 50,000 0 154,284 1.70 US Bank 2,015,773 2028 9,276,951 471,911 8,352,664CRWC_Corona Ranch (954) Sonoma Petaluma 2017 Family 85,450 74 98.7% Wells Fargo < 1% HCD 985,597 16,017 2,150 692,392 307,071 184,292 44,399 0 78,380 1.34 Citibank 1,774,528 2033 7,562,211 456,410 6,823,810 Owned/Operated with Washington Creek (956)CRWC_Washington Creek (956) Sonoma Petaluma 2017 Family 38,000 32 100.0% Wells Fargo < 1% HCD 379,011 8,261 0 288,991 98,281 79,684 19,201 0 (604) 0.99 Citibank 767,412 2033 4,298,093 75,822 2,184,015 Owned/Operated with Corona Ranch (954) Cypress Gardens (994) Monterey Marina 1997 Family 74,944 96 100.0% US Bank < 1% HUD 236 1,211,320 19,564 239,938 730,595 260,351 1,099 0 0 259,252 Construction Loan 0 0 0 5,785,586 Substantial rehabilitation completed in 2020Del Nido Apartments (964) Sonoma Santa Rosa 2012 Family 125,268 206 97.1% Post Buyout 100% HUD 811 2,911,598 55,130 39,611 1,463,033 1,464,084 830,479 51,504 0 582,101 1.66 Bellwether 14,401,085 2024 0 187,994 32,535,193Depot Commons (748) Santa Clara Morgan Hill 2015 Family 8,500 13 100.0% 100% HCD 120,582 3,279 10,733 126,793 (13,665) 0 7,973 23,879 2,241 0 924,672 72,395 0 Scheduled for resyndication and financial restructuring in 2021Downtown River Apartments (348) Sonoma Petaluma 2005 Family 104,434 81 95.1% Post Buyout 100% 1,308,648 34,683 13,800 794,349 535,182 440,165 62,092 5,746 38,672 1.07 CCRC 4,332,000 2035 8,058,832 215,647 11,892,933East Bluff Apartments (616) Contra Costa Pinole 2016 Family 100,747 144 95.1% US Bank < 1% 1,996,770 45,681 67,427 1,258,228 716,796 484,269 67,827 10,339 175,039 1.30 CCRC 8,182,334 2036 20,361,739 669,818 15,928,802Eden Baywood Apartments (356) Alameda Fremont 2005 Family 80,018 82 100.0% Merritt < 1% 1,263,772 2,851 453 656,505 609,665 185,551 49,200 0 374,914 2.60 Citibank 1,940,493 2037 3,575,204 469,133 13,548,117Eden Lodge LP (364) Alameda San Leandro 2011 Senior 124,197 144 99.3% Hudson < 1% HUD 202 3,491,976 85,849 35,078 1,100,774 2,441,973 577,851 96,528 0 1,767,594 3.62 Prudential 7,920,000 2040 87,798 2,052,268 54,266,072Real Estate Schedule as of 12/31/2020Cap Rate = 4.50 Residential Properties County City Placed In
Service
Community
Served
Rentable
Area
Units Occupied % LIHTC
Investor
Eden
Housing
Ownership
Federal/
State
Subsidy
Gross Rental
Revenue
Other
Income
Vacancy Operating
Expenses
NOI Debt Service Reserves
Deposit
Reserve
Withdrawals
NOI After Debt
Service
DSCR Mortgage
Lender
Mortgage
Balance
Due Date for
1st
Mortgage
Soft Debt
Outstanding
Reserve
Balances
Market
Value
Comments
Real Estate Schedule as of 12/31/2020Cap Rate = 4.50
Eden Palms (368) Santa Clara San Jose 1996 Family 132,223 146 100.0% Post Buyout 100% 3,161,022 1,180 2,359 1,385,515 1,774,328 933,552 75,000 0 765,777 1.76 Citibank 14,501,175 2025 0 536,086 39,429,513Edenvale Apartments (376) Santa Clara San Jose 2007 Special Needs 13,515 15 100.0% 100% HUD 811/HCD 180,471 2,865 1,389 171,047 10,901 7,418 15,815 7,418 (4,914) 0 2,046,162 379,231 242,235 HUD property; budget-based rent increase will be requestedEHP E.C. Magnolia LP (708) Alameda Hayward 2013 Special Needs 12,429 21 100.0% Merritt < 1% HUD 202 493,836 2,727 0 258,763 237,800 90,202 19,310 0 128,288 2.17 Citibank (partial assgn to Calhfa) 1,313,366 2032 245,010 384,072 5,284,438 EHP Fuller Lodge LP (700) Alameda San Leandro 2014 Special Needs 15,860 26 100.0% Merritt < 1% HUD 202 608,201 3,834 7,869 218,180 385,986 151,665 21,210 0 213,111 2.23 Citibank (partial assgn to Calhfa) 2,255,671 2032 1,440,921 562,059 8,577,460EHP Issei Terrace LP (692) Alameda Hayward 2014 Senior 89,928 100 99.0% Merritt < 1% HUD 202 2,440,614 107,440 20,913 829,035 1,698,106 550,715 65,918 0 1,081,473 2.75 Citibank (partial assgn to Calhfa) 8,439,278 2033 1,144,708 1,997,847 37,735,684EHP Olive Tree Plaza LP (704) Alameda Hayward 2013 Special Needs 16,940 26 92.3% Merritt < 1% HUD 202 657,945 2,953 1,875 228,765 430,258 116,905 17,702 0 295,650 3.20 Citibank (partial assgn to Calhfa) 1,732,888 2033 964,467 421,529 9,561,286EHP Redwood Lodge LP (688) Alameda Fremont 2013 Special Needs 25,000 24 100.0% Merritt < 1% HUD 202 640,940 1,823 4,242 202,142 436,379 160,131 15,697 0 260,551 2.48 Citibank 2,378,805 2032 1,189,333 586,816 9,697,313EHP Sequoia Manor LP (696) Alameda Fremont 2013 Senior 99,087 81 100.0% Merritt < 1% HUD 202 1,981,408 4,633 6,474 496,702 1,482,865 503,949 50,167 0 928,748 2.68 Citibank (partial assgn to Calhfa) 7,683,068 2033 312,713 2,496,431 32,952,548Emerson Arms (384) Contra Costa Martinez 1995 Family 25,326 32 96.9% 100% Calhfa/HUD 699,514 4,756 36,022 374,857 293,391 164,336 19,114 0 109,941 1.60 Calhfa 1,672,093 2035 252,276 1,426,799 6,519,799 Estabrook Senior Housing (624) Alameda San Leandro 2010 Senior 41,620 51 100.0% Enterprise < 1% HUD 202 415,963 4,364 1,819 373,473 45,035 0 48,348 0 (3,313) 0 12,067,350 709,509 1,000,779 HUD property; budget-based rent increase will be requestedFaith Manor (996) Alameda Hayward 2017 Family 74,048 62 100.0% Hudson < 1% 1,196,018 6,187 0 521,185 681,020 0 0 0 681,020 Construction Loan 0 0 0 15,133,774 Substantial rehabilitation completed in 2020Fireside Apartments (612) Marin Mill Valley 2010 Family 44,197 50 100.0% Enterprise < 1% Calhfa/HCD 1,100,175 15,147 4,657 647,086 463,580 110,800 25,008 0 327,772 3.41 Calhfa 859,850 2031 10,706,375 588,128 10,301,772Ford Road Plaza (888) Santa Clara San Jose 2014 Family 16,900 75 100.0% Wells Fargo < 1% HCD 1,100,448 13,969 18,400 629,628 466,388 264,435 37,500 0 164,453 1.54 CCRC 3,835,895 2033 9,848,543 983,491 10,364,182Foss Creek Court (628) Sonoma Healdsburg 2010 Family 79,555 64 100.0% US Bank < 1% 647,528 26,015 4,463 553,699 115,382 88,042 25,600 10,000 11,740 1.02 CCRC 398,455 2026 3,400,000 918,333 2,564,038Fuller Gardens (392) Alameda San Leandro 2004 Special Needs 14,635 16 100.0% 100% HUD 811/HCD 173,616 2,852 0 145,654 30,814 5,225 9,552 0 16,037 0 2,055,322 127,230 684,754Gateway Palms (756) San Benito Hollister 2011 Family 28,934 31 100.0% Alliant < 1% HCD 292,194 5,868 1,114 259,185 37,763 0 28,600 0 9,163 0 4,539,937 356,079 839,173 Replacement reserve withdrawal is made to cover deficit Gilroy Sobrato (760) Santa Clara Gilroy 2013 Family 18,000 26 96.2% 100% Calhfa/HCD 511,261 5,917 7,372 294,614 215,192 24,768 19,500 4,934 175,858 0 8,085,015 493,687 4,782,049Glen Berry (958) Alameda Hayward 2017 Family 81,524 50 100.0% Wells Fargo < 1% HCD 757,507 10,851 13,077 523,565 231,716 157,995 34,651 9,302 48,372 1.20 CCRC (sale to Freddie Mac) 1,712,348 2038 5,803,636 245,821 5,149,239 Glen Eden (960) Alameda Hayward 2017 Family 71,768 36 100.0% Wells Fargo < 1% HCD 545,947 5,444 0 332,854 218,537 113,756 24,949 6,698 86,529 1.58 CCRC (sale to Freddie Mac) 1,232,890 2038 4,707,337 187,971 4,856,369Grove Way Apartments (952) Alameda Hayward 1982 Family 7,030 11 100.0% 100% 279,782 1,667 0 72,546 208,903 28,703 2,748 0 177,452 6.64 Citibank 200,089 2029 0 118,817 4,642,290Hana Gardens (926) Contra Costa El Cerrito 2018 Senior 38,924 63 100.0% Wells Fargo < 1% HCD 1,200,410 11,263 0 545,011 666,663 466,026 45,859 8,059 162,836 1.30 CCRC 6,447,277 10/1/2049 10,642,547 1,050,557 14,814,727 Hayward Senior Apts (556) Alameda Hayward 2008 Senior 36,448 60 100.0% Union Bank < 1% 720,687 5,680 4,556 434,473 287,338 115,995 36,000 0 135,343 1.89 CCRC 1,208,297 2038 568,567 199,606 6,385,298Highlands Apartments (662) Solano Vacaville 1977 Family 8,800 11 100.0% 100% 129,307 4,990 7,788 83,309 43,200 0 4,656 0 38,544 0 1,408,588 142,886 959,992 Commenced property management services Jan 1, 2020Hillside Senior Apartments (663) Solano Vacaville 1977 Senior 11,200 15 93.3% 100% 200,042 362 7,637 108,486 84,281 9,514 4,200 0 70,567 0 702,500 39,308 1,872,918 Commenced property management services Jan 1, 2020Hillview Glen Apartments (632) Santa Clara San Jose 1995 Family 134,433 139 100.0% Post Buyout 100% Calhfa 2,359,505 14,894 4,051 1,039,872 1,330,476 959,123 103,500 0 267,853 1.25 Calhfa 9,641,686 2037 7,020,386 552,691 29,566,138Jardines de Boronda (764) Monterey Salinas 2006 Family 14,784 15 100.0% 100% USDA/HCD 231,713 5,016 15,694 144,817 76,219 54,155 0 0 22,064 1.41 USDA RD 712,464 2039 855,077 98,565 1,693,751Jasmine Square Apartments (768) Santa Clara Morgan Hill 2005 Family 65,637 72 100.0% Post Buyout 100% 1,135,627 32,041 9,425 664,155 494,088 306,692 72,000 0 115,396 1.30 Walker & Dunlop 3,986,760 2030 4,442,076 688,921 10,979,733 Refinanced in 2020Josephine Lum Lodge, L.P. (436) Alameda Hayward 2005 Senior 130,000 151 98.0% Merritt < 1% HUD 236 2,507,978 63,043 35,397 1,143,445 1,392,178 499,879 76,476 0 815,823 2.42 Citibank 3,991,960 2027 5,465,852 1,001,244 30,937,298Kirker Court Apartments (440) Contra Costa Clayton 1992 Special Needs 16,740 20 90.0% 100% HUD 811 226,494 1,636 0 175,192 52,938 0 22,800 0 30,138 0 567,000 255,103 1,176,395 Las Palmas Apartments (608) Alameda San Leandro 2016 Family 57,000 91 100.0% US Bank < 1% 1,394,288 22,273 22,725 643,521 750,315 400,717 31,300 4,000 322,298 1.74 CCRC 7,166,452 2036 12,411,658 421,624 16,673,664Leidig Court LLC (668) Alameda Hayward 2013 Family 12,990 16 87.5% 100% 263,386 5,675 16,538 156,417 96,106 73,300 5,280 0 17,526 1.22 Citibank 982,137 2029 923,139 83,799 2,135,694Light Tree Apartments (947) San Mateo East Palo Alto 2000 Family 31,158 37 86.5% US Bank < 1% HUD 346,170 8,702 78,757 192,929 83,186 0 0 0 83,186 Construction Loan 0 6,496,652 0 1,848,586 Closed construction financing to demolish and rebuild 128 replacement units.

Light Tree Apartments (948) San Mateo East Palo Alto 2000 Family 37,126 57 91.2% US Bank < 1% HUD 34,198 2,903 31,004 116,419 (110,322) 000 (110,322) Construction Loan 0 0 0 0 Under subtantial rehabilitiation; units held for relocation/rehabilitation Lincoln Corner Apartments (653) Solano Vacaville 2004 Family 144,860 134 99.3% BFIM 0% 1,915,275 254,923 24,756 1,006,367 1,139,076 844,258 72,504 39,000 261,314 1.24 CSCDA 8,100,416 2043 2,571,223 3,082,679 25,312,792Lincoln Square (776) Santa Cruz Watsonville 1999 Family 24,334 19 100.0% 100% USDA 266,640 12,243 0 179,309 99,574 76,091 0 15,342 38,825 1.31 USDA RD 916,085 2033 0 334,658 2,212,756Maple Gardens (982) Santa Clara Gilroy 2017 Family 15,492 18 100.0% 100% USDA 189,048 9,793 0 157,151 41,690 56 15,828 0 25,806 2.62 USDA RD 866 2040 0 80,178 926,446Meadows Court / Holly Lane (654) Solano Vacaville 2017 Family 0 82 97.6% Aegon < 1% 1,064,730 5,454 11,859 556,318 502,007 417,987 25,338 0 58,683 1.13 Citibank 6,820,568 2050 7,525,301 355,194 11,155,717 Residential Properties County City Placed In
Service
Community
Served
Rentable
Area
Units Occupied % LIHTC
Investor
Eden
Housing
Ownership
Federal/
State
Subsidy
Gross Rental
Revenue
Other
Income
Vacancy Operating
Expenses
NOI Debt Service Reserves
Deposit
Reserve
Withdrawals
NOI After Debt
Service
DSCR Mortgage
Lender
Mortgage
Balance
Due Date for
1st
Mortgage
Soft Debt
Outstanding
Reserve
Balances
Market
Value
Comments
Real Estate Schedule as of 12/31/2020Cap Rate = 4.50
Miraflores Senior Apartments (634) Contra Costa Richmond 2018 Senior 44,942 80 98.8% Wells Fargo < 1% HCD 1,847,802 19,924 78,650 602,490 1,186,586 622,091 72,388 4,447 496,553 1.71 CCRC 8,787,164 8/1/2049 13,170,453 1,124,276 26,368,573 Monterey Villa (672) Santa Clara San Jose 2013 Special Needs 69,746 20 100.0% 100% HUD Sec 8 195,456 6,782 0 188,155 14,084 0 16,368 15,725 13,441 0 3,838,634 175,346 312,974Monterra Village (976) Santa Clara Gilroy 2018 Family 29,593 34 100.0% CREA < 1% HCD 423,030 23,714 1,525 270,862 174,357 84,852 24,400 4,000 69,105 1.60 CCRC 1,074,645 2039 6,252,821 247,724 3,874,590Monteverde (884) Contra Costa Orinda 2014 Senior 71,700 67 94.0% Union Bank < 1% 1,490,281 7,884 32,656 467,254 998,255 383,772 30,156 0 584,326 2.41 Union Bank 5,237,958 2029 5,922,773 789,151 22,183,441Montgomery Plaza Apartments (880) Alameda Hayward 2014 Senior 38,000 50 100.0% Merritt < 1% HUD Sec 8 1,177,967 2,864 11,877 412,978 755,976 321,299 50,000 0 384,677 2.04 Walker & Dunlop 5,162,767 2049 693,109 519,138 16,799,474Monticelli Apartments (788) Santa Clara Gilroy 2002 Family 43,940 52 98.1% Post Buyout 100% 954,188 16,284 18,773 508,106 443,593 208,846 39,480 0 195,267 1.79 Calhfa 1,787,384 2033 2,573,368 343,895 9,857,624Nuevo Amanecer (792) Santa Cruz Watsonville 2006 Family 76,101 63 100.0% Post Buyout 100% USDA/HCD 790,091 77,280 5,032 581,540 280,800 212,446 37,800 569,451 600,005 1.12 USDA RD 2,987,158 2040 8,570,000 409,788 6,240,001 Buyout on 12/31/2020Nuevo Sol LLC (918) Santa Clara Santa Clara 2007 Family 17,947 14 100.0% 100% Calhfa/HCD 180,900 554 0 123,122 58,332 6,388 6,816 0 45,128 0 2,582,002 132,174 1,296,267Nugent Square Apartments (456) San Mateo East Palo Alto 2004 Family 33,756 32 100.0% Post Buyout 100% 582,827 12,278 2,306 459,609 133,190 86,440 65,582 0 (18,832) 0.88 Citibank 1,977,000 2021 3,512,712 400,665 2,959,772 Refinanced in 2020 with lower payment Ohlone Chynoweth (460) Santa Clara San Jose 2000 Family 183,714 195 100.0% Post Buyout 100% 3,439,715 74,045 14,800 1,525,564 1,973,397 928,868 67,200 0 977,328 1.98 Union Bank 12,172,550 2029 5,555,016 2,137,515 43,853,256Orvieto Santa Clara San Jose 2014 Family 92 100.0% Aegon < 1% 2,188,934 16,389 3,387 549,671 1,652,265 549,990 9,200 0 1,093,075 2.95 Wells Fargo 7,165,000 2029 11,372,232 736,428 36,717,000Owl's Landing (468) Alameda Livermore 2000 Family 89,928 74 100.0% Post Buyout 100% Calhfa 1,223,231 6,694 11,232 771,104 447,590 342,078 72,000 0 33,512 1.08 Calhfa 3,314,598 2035 4,381,132 105,970 9,946,438Pacific Family MHP LLC (920) Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 2014 Family N/A 34 N/A 100% HCD 182,299 13,642 1,140 0 194,801 41,000 10,000 0 143,801 0 4,402,382 80,980 4,328,911Pacific Grove (472) Alameda Fremont 1997 Special Needs 13,900 20 100.0% 100% HUD 811 198,825 5,954 0 175,050 29,729 0 6,912 0 22,817 0 1,183,079 95,123 660,635Pacific Terrace (796) Santa Cruz Freedom 1998 Family 37,836 28 100.0% Post Buyout 100% Calhfa 389,750 16,851 224 239,563 166,813 59,033 22,368 0 85,412 2.05 Citibank 374,284 2029 1,827,000 197,120 3,706,946Pajaro Court (800) Santa Cruz Watsonville 1994 Family 10,402 10 100.0% Post Buyout 100% HCD 145,408 5,906 0 93,149 58,166 23,696 5,000 0 29,470 2.03 Union Bank 83,124 2025 850,000 54,778 1,292,567Pauline Weaver Senior Apartments (Four) (970 Alameda Fremont 2018 Senior 28,742 44 100.0% Enterprise < 1% 710,909 3,363 103 315,202 398,968 294,041 22,000 0 82,927 1.26 JP Morgan 4,752,244 2037 5,419,921 78,614 8,865,951Pauline Weaver Senior Apartments (Nine) (972 Alameda Fremont 2018 Senior 28,760 46 100.0% Enterprise < 1% 727,942 4,433 698 331,271 400,406 288,460 23,000 0 88,946 1.29 JP Morgan 4,166,994 2037 3,070,079 85,376 8,897,912Pleasant Acres MHP LLC (938) Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 2016 Family N/A 65 N/A 100% HCD 324,450 34,585 6,072 287,928 65,035 0 19,537 0 45,498 0 5,056,886 422,455 1,445,222Quail Run Alameda County (990) Alameda San Leandro 2018 Family 76,320 104 94.2% HPET 25% 2,115,754 19,897 44,802 856,057 1,234,792 718,032 26,000 0 490,760 1.66 Jones Lang LaSalle 14,285,000 2030 2,090,856 697,202 27,439,814Quail Run Apartments (945) Sonoma Santa Rosa 1999 Family 200,716 200 94.5% Union Bank < 1% HUD 811 2,462,404 13,433 108,821 1,168,158 1,198,858 6,272 0 0 1,192,585 Construction Loan 0 23,060,683 0 26,641,288 Under subtantial rehabilitiationRancho Park (804) San Benito Hollister 2016 Family 49,318 54 100.0% Wells Fargo < 1% HCD 601,208 25,988 0 506,410 120,786 0 32,400 0 88,386 0 5,166,237 759,334 2,684,126Redwoods Apartments (984) Santa Clara Gilroy 2018 Family 25,000 24 100.0% RBC < 1% HCD 346,164 9,414 0 201,201 154,377 55,541 15,080 680 84,436 2.19 CCRC 5,415,970 2036 23,565,516 745,269 3,430,605Ridgeview Commons (480) Alameda Pleasanton 1989 Senior 178,302 200 99.0% Post Buyout 100% Calhfa 2,139,657 99,503 31,637 1,275,129 932,393 582,723 140,850 0 208,820 1.29 Calhfa 4,069,871 2029 6,475,000 1,433,534 20,719,855Rielly Station (892) Alameda Fremont 2020 Family 61,176 61 75.4% Wells Fargo < 1% 61,321 1 23,538 0 37,784 0 0 0 37,784 Construction Loan 0 5,646,218 0 839,644 Ground-up construction completed in 2020 Riverhouse Hotel (484) Contra Costa Martinez 1993 Senior 45,000 81 100.0% Post Buyout 100% HCD 578,395 25,829 26,764 588,043 (10,582) 0 26,246 0 (36,828) 0 3,879,021 283,167 0 Experienced incidents of bed bugs and termintes resulting in large extermination costs Riverside MHP LLC (922) Santa Cruz Watsonville 2009 Family N/A 25 N/A 100% HCD 111,397 252 5,839 84,879 20,931 0 8,400 0 12,531 0 5,700,000 173,935 465,133Rivertown Place (548) Contra Costa Antioch 2007 Family 41,844 40 97.5% RBC < 1% 613,556 5,302 18,660 471,414 128,785 60,211 24,000 38 44,612 1.53 CCRC 605,715 2038 2,297,986 239,566 2,861,884Rocky Hill (658) Solano Vacaville 2018 Family/ Special Needs 0 39 100.0% NEF < 1% HCD 768,606 28,337 18,889 394,055 383,998 315,548 19,500 0 48,950 1.15 Citibank 5,609,817 2054 10,218,410 407,106 8,533,297 Rosewood Terrace (488) Alameda Union City 2000 Senior 34,266 45 100.0% 100% HUD 202 391,253 6,458 851 354,498 42,362 0 27,000 0 15,362 0 2,287,385 199,112 941,382 Royal Court Apartments (812) Santa Clara Morgan Hill 2007 Family 65,809 55 100.0% Union Bank < 1% 842,136 11,824 0 441,225 412,735 228,364 90,000 0 94,371 1.30 Citibank 2,204,540 2037 3,675,000 470,378 9,171,892 Rustic Gardens (816) San Benito Hollister 2016 Family 21,295 19 100.0% Wells Fargo < 1% HCD 222,708 10,618 0 201,032 32,294 0 11,400 0 20,894 0 1,967,919 0 717,651Samara Terrace Apartments (420) Contra Costa Hercules 2006 Senior 43,643 52 92.3% Post Buyout 100% 1,153,169 4,592 80,901 371,560 705,300 102,671 51,996 0 550,633 4.56 US Bank 1,058,368 2037 2,454,996 330,939 15,673,331 Sara Conner Court (492) Alameda Hayward 2006 Family 59,984 57 100.0% Enterprise < 1% 891,753 14,517 1,142 626,102 279,026 196,579 34,713 0 47,734 1.21 CDT 1,956,383 2037 6,528,681 501,437 6,200,588Seacliff Highlands Apartments (820) Santa Cruz Aptos 2006 Family 37,960 39 97.4% Post Buyout 100% HCD 571,673 22,657 28,459 403,309 162,562 108,510 39,000 0 15,052 1.10 Calhfa 1,017,441 2037 4,060,066 160,340 3,612,479Sereno Village Apartments (596) Solano Vallejo 2003 Family 148,000 126 99.2% Post Buyout 100% 1,330,100 18,581 17,490 1,177,175 154,017 0 125,000 0 29,016 0 3,662,577 319,521 3,422,589Skeels Apartments (824) Santa Clara Morgan Hill 1995 Family 5,052 14 100.0% 100% 210,874 1,945 0 131,288 81,530 63,422 0 0 18,109 1.29 NWA 688,594 2021 1,114,526 63,841 1,811,788 Will be refinanced in 2021 Residential Properties County City Placed In
Service
Community
Served
Rentable
Area
Units Occupied % LIHTC
Investor
Eden
Housing
Ownership
Federal/
State
Subsidy
Gross Rental
Revenue
Other
Income
Vacancy Operating
Expenses
NOI Debt Service Reserves
Deposit
Reserve
Withdrawals
NOI After Debt
Service
DSCR Mortgage
Lender
Mortgage
Balance
Due Date for
1st
Mortgage
Soft Debt
Outstanding
Reserve
Balances
Market
Value
Comments
Real Estate Schedule as of 12/31/2020Cap Rate = 4.50
Sobrato Family Apartments (828) Santa Clara Gilroy 2006 Family 62,900 60 96.7% Post Buyout 100% Calhfa/HCD 1,216,350 18,498 10,346 619,349 605,153 45,567 24,000 0 535,586 8.70 Calhfa 174,151 2029 7,412,505 336,718 13,447,838 Buyout on 12/31/2020South Hayward_Alta Mira Family (916) Alameda Hayward 2016 Family 76,053 87 100.0% Wells Fargo < 1% Calhfa/HCD 1,107,682 23,854 17,515 769,174 344,845 205,162 52,200 21,295 108,779 1.34 CCRC (sale to Freddie Mac) 1,435,041 2050 16,731,925 1,347,860 7,663,229 Owned/operated with Alta Mira Senior (928) South Hayward_Alta Mira Senior (928) Alameda Hayward 2016 Senior 174,009 64 98.4% Wells Fargo < 1% Calhfa/HCD 598,668 15,807 18,574 525,648 70,253 146,278 38,400 0 (114,425) 0.38 CCRC (sale to Freddie Mac) 1,039,167 2050 12,043,664 117,774 1,561,181 Owned/operated with Alta Mira Family (916)Sparks Way Commons (500) Alameda Hayward 1984 Family 57,010 45 95.6% < 1% HCD 766,403 35,989 6,444 425,379 370,568 10,495 27,000 0 333,073 0 2,748,810 46,728 8,234,851Stone Pine Meadows (943) San Joaquin Tracy 2000 Family 74,159 72 100.0% NEF < 1% Calhfa 774,025 8,285 20,886 449,935 311,489 0 0 0 311,489 Construction Loan 0 7,411,391 586,279 6,921,980 Under subtantial rehabilitiationStoney Creek (925) Alameda Livermore 2018 Family 75,336 70 100.0% Redstone < 1% HCD 1,037,778 6,676 7,655 636,656 400,143 282,366 42,000 0 75,777 1.23 US Bank 2,889,542 7/1/2034 15,336,190 328,226 8,892,070Studio 819 Apartments (896) Santa Clara Mountain View 2015 Family 21,000 49 100.0% Wells Fargo < 1% 480,959 10,503 3,952 430,005 57,505 48,100 19,608 0 (10,203) 0.85 CCRC 363,235 2031 8,165,642 276,376 1,277,896 Replacement reserve withdrawal is made to cover the deficit after year- endSurf Apartments (604) Alameda San Leandro 2010 Family 21,975 46 95.7% Post Buyout 100% Calhfa 720,568 7,087 22,427 291,529 413,699 146,117 17,712 0 249,870 2.53 Calhfa 2,302,394 2035 1,754,885 323,283 9,193,313Sycamore Glen (832) Santa Clara Morgan Hill 1989 Family 11,772 20 100.0% 100% HUD 202 424,056 1,411 0 187,805 237,662 169,147 8,358 0 60,157 1.34 Walker & Dunlop 4,917,000 2035 351,090 1,103,877 5,281,376 Under moderate rehabilitationSycamore Square (512) Alameda Hayward 1983 Family 28,436 26 100.0% 100% Calhfa/HUD 936,349 1,397 0 263,912 673,834 153,226 91,530 0 429,079 2.75 Calhfa 1,250,038 2031 0 222,915 14,974,100Tennyson Garden Apartments (998) Alameda Hayward 2001 Family 92,000 96 97.9% Hudson < 1% HUD Sec 8 2,241,742 17,960 51,136 944,167 1,264,399 0 0 0 1,264,399 Construction Loan 0 0 0 28,097,751 Substantial rehabilitation completed in 2020The Savannah at Southport (912) Yolo Sacramento 2015 Family 233,920 228 96.5% HPET 14% 3,261,765 29,175 104,969 1,446,453 1,739,518 1,305,830 150,000 0 283,688 1.19 Jones Lang LaSalle 22,943,155 2026 0 636,434 38,655,955The Trees Apartments (836) Santa Clara Gilroy 1982 Family 12,590 14 85.7% 100% USDA/HCD 171,904 9,118 4,753 111,580 64,689 64 0 32,587 97,212 1017.13 USDA RD 816 2034 0 98,577 1,437,541The Willows (872) Santa Clara Morgan Hill 1992 Family 22,879 20 100.0% Post Buyout 100% HCD 316,048 5,459 1,427 199,748 120,332 29,653 30,000 0 60,679 2.02 JP Morgan 313,731 2037 954,228 261,383 2,674,051Tierra Linda (840) Santa Cruz Watsonville 1994 Family 18,967 18 100.0% Post Buyout 100% HCD 247,097 7,525 2,075 155,645 96,902 33,176 18,000 0 45,726 1.89 Citibank 123,564 2025 1,234,667 111,760 2,153,368Union Court (516) San Joaquin Manteca 2000 Family 49,422 68 97.1% Post Buyout 100% Calhfa/HCD 689,887 12,001 6,404 476,363 219,122 97,749 48,100 0 73,272 1.50 Calhfa 818,160 2033 4,575,229 228,471 4,869,367University Village Apartments (844) Monterey Marina 2014 Family 100,958 108 100.0% Alliant < 1% HCD 976,197 22,299 4,284 681,397 312,815 130,039 64,800 0 117,976 1.61 JP Morgan 1,013,930 2035 14,755,799 685,414 6,951,450Vacaville Meadows Drive Solano Vacaville 1968 Family 68,189 65 95.4% BFIM 0% 705,316 222,077 19,745 522,179 385,469 200,695 16,250 0 168,525 1.78 Impact Funding LLC 1,917,958 2023 1,789,516 15,876 8,565,988Valor Crossing (914) Alameda Dublin 2017 Family 133,377 66 98.5% Bank of America < 1% 1,275,408 5,572 19,458 709,994 551,528 269,233 44,471 4,897 242,722 1.76 CCRC 3,896,842 2035 13,403,000 736,283 12,256,187 Vandenburgh Villa (520) Alameda Livermore 2005 Senior 24,126 40 100.0% 100% HUD 202 329,264 1,084 138 303,837 26,373 0 17,720 0 8,654 0 3,431,952 228,323 586,069VCH_Orchard/Maples Apartments (659) Solano Vacaville 1965 Family 147,062 168 97.6% 100% 2,126,304 22,167 46,305 1,166,119 936,046 317,013 94,200 0 524,834 2.28 Bonds 1,876,190 2024 6,309,159 258,480 20,801,029 Commenced property management services Jan 1, 2020; owned and operated with Willows Apartments VCH_Willows Apartments (661) Solano Vacaville 1993 Family 98,185 125 96.8% 100% 1,359,819 30,676 44,588 1,082,162 263,746 236,844 78,000 0 (51,098) 0.84 Bonds 1,876,190 2024 7,159,437 220,869 5,861,019 Commenced property management services Jan 1, 2020; owned and operated with Orchard Maples (659) Victoria Green Apartments (380) Contra Costa Hercules 2004 Family 133,699 132 97.0% Post Buyout 100% Calhfa/HCD 1,956,220 34,704 59,632 1,147,379 783,912 648,220 50,832 0 84,860 1.12 Calhfa 6,152,093 2034 6,564,309 483,893 17,420,268Villa Ciolino (848) Santa Clara Morgan Hill 2001 Family 39,776 42 97.6% Post Buyout 100% 607,220 5,699 3,225 360,568 249,126 134,986 66,170 0 47,970 1.24 Bank of America 1,104,992 2032 2,856,723 212,875 5,536,131Villa Esperanza (966) Santa Clara Gilroy 2000 Special Needs 15,616 21 100.0% 100% HUD 811 200,405 5,157 1,700 193,817 10,045 0 9,204 21,063 21,904 0 1,229,454 199,138 223,220Villa Springs (524) Alameda Hayward 2008 Family 59,633 66 100.0% Enterprise < 1% Calhfa/HCD 773,658 8,986 0 551,786 230,858 199,698 48,722 16,524 (1,038) 0.93 Calhfa 2,447,190 2039 5,284,804 386,910 5,130,177 $30k in insurance claim damage that wasn’t reimbursed in 2020.

Virginia Lane (950) Contra Costa Concord 2017 Family 60,506 91 97.8% Wells Fargo < 1% HCD 1,002,356 29,496 20,625 760,942 250,284 170,567 54,600 12,000 37,117 1.11 Citibank 2,053,513 2038 15,323,615 599,846 5,561,877Vista Point at Pacific Grove (856) Monterey Pacific Grove 2006 Senior 49,875 49 98.0% Post Buyout 100% Calhfa/HCD 767,963 4,325 4,263 418,369 349,656 142,637 19,608 0 187,411 2.16 Calhfa 1,510,589 2036 4,262,000 373,235 7,770,140Vista Terrace Hills (962) San Diego San Diego 2017 Family 279,045 262 100.0% US Bank < 1% 6,327,294 83,475 2,291 1,791,236 4,617,241 3,571,330 131,540 0 914,372 1.25 US Bank 59,542,184 2035 3,456,213 2,001,992 102,605,365Vista Verde (860) Santa Cruz Freedom 2001 Family 74,436 76 100.0% Post Buyout 100% HCD 992,753 44,563 575 614,001 422,739 111,963 58,720 0 252,056 2.48 Bank of America 960,442 2031 3,134,133 578,727 9,394,204Walker Landing Apartments (552) Alameda Hayward 2008 Family 76,651 78 98.7% US Bank < 1% HCD 970,741 13,307 14,308 735,881 233,859 157,279 46,800 0 29,780 1.15 Union Bank 1,456,721 2039 9,366,695 281,195 5,196,864Warner Creek Senior Housing (652) Marin Novato 2013 Senior 61,830 61 100.0% Bank of America < 1% HCD 1,606,200 5,224 13,221 648,674 949,530 362,028 40,806 8,412 555,108 2.36 Citibank 3,553,840 2038 9,647,062 870,540 21,100,662 Weinreb Place (900) Alameda Hayward 2015 Senior 20,813 22 100.0% NEF < 1% HUD 202 261,831 1,890 1,579 215,490 46,652 6,602 25,745 13,410 27,715 0 5,979,200 595,461 1,036,718West Rivertown (536) Contra Costa Antioch 2003 Family 43,560 57 96.5% Post Buyout 100% 841,949 14,979 93,999 544,206 218,723 182,824 28,380 0 7,518 1.04 Citibank 1,555,048 2033 4,344,186 226,146 4,860,503 Westside Terrace (864) San Benito Hollister 2015 Family 16,656 16 100.0% 100% USDA/HCD 225,026 11,221 0 152,139 84,107 58,617 15,792 33,136 42,834 1.13 USDA RD 345,815 2028 1,494,457 282,476 1,869,052Wexford Way (644) Alameda Dublin 2013 Family 119,539 131 99.2% Wells Fargo < 1% 2,559,746 15,463 62,878 1,174,269 1,338,062 778,599 87,632 23,923 495,753 1.54 Citibank (partial assgn to Calhfa) 9,428,720 2031 11,470,351 1,749,552 29,734,708 Wheeler Manor (986) Santa Clara Gilroy 2018 Senior 93,583 119 100.0% RBC < 1% HCD 1,201,284 51,064 5,808 723,096 523,444 271,171 73,520 3,320 182,073 1.52 CCRC 5,415,970 2036 23,565,516 745,269 11,632,092 Residential Properties County City Placed In
Service
Community
Served
Rentable
Area
Units Occupied % LIHTC
Investor
Eden
Housing
Ownership
Federal/
State
Subsidy
Gross Rental
Revenue
Other
Income
Vacancy Operating
Expenses
NOI Debt Service Reserves
Deposit
Reserve
Withdrawals
NOI After Debt
Service
DSCR Mortgage
Lender
Mortgage
Balance
Due Date for
1st
Mortgage
Soft Debt
Outstanding
Reserve
Balances
Market
Value
Comments
Real Estate Schedule as of 12/31/2020Cap Rate = 4.50
Wicklow Square Apartments (540) Alameda Dublin 2005 Senior 39,135 54 98.2% Post Buyout 100% 608,903 6,933 12,080 320,451 283,305 109,869 44,640 0 128,795 1.83 Citibank 1,012,196 2021 2,208,248 330,092 6,295,656 Refinanced in 2021Windscape Apartments (580) Los Angeles Northridge 1996 Family 31,674 45 100.0% Post Buyout 100% 594,627 4,343 10,296 406,320 182,354 117,942 27,000 0 37,412 1.26 Citibank 1,007,182 2026 0 109,639 4,052,321Wisteria Place Senior Apts (544) Alameda Union City 2004 Senior 36,591 40 100.0% 100% HUD 202 325,165 7,906 764 311,977 20,330 0 20,820 0 (490) 0 2,184,438 195,307 451,770 HUD property; budget-based rent increase will be requested Woodside Court (680) Solano Fairfield 2013 Family 104,680 129 99.2% HPET 16% 1,752,499 22,307 11,969 829,906 932,931 614,048 42,312 0 276,570 1.42 Wells Fargo 7,893,793 2021 0 236,390 20,731,792 Refinanced in 2021z-Fell Street (Gough Street) San Francisco San Francisco Family 82 < 1% Passive interest with limited oversight z-Pinole Grove (John Street) Contra Costa Pinole Family 70 < 1% Passive interest with limited oversight 154 9,179,934 10 98.38% 116 97 159 ,362 ,346,940 3,011,455 2,834,383 80,889,217 78,634,795 38,636,644 5,750,359 1,103,604 35,351,395 523,493,128 814,194,562 79,741,282 1,750,430,312 UNITSTOTAL UNITS OWNED OR MANAGED 10,362TOTAL UNITS OWNED 10,106TOTAL UNITS MANAGED 9,696 Commercial Space County City Placed In
Service
Use Rentable Area Occupied % Eden
Housing
Ownership
Rental Revenue Comments
Depot Commons Santa Clara Morgan Hill 2015 Day Care 1,299 100% 100% 12,000 Use of space restricted by regulatory agreementDowntown River Sonoma Petaluma 2005 Retail 5,210 32% 100% 127,549 Master Tenant Structure with Eden Commercial IncEden Lodge Alameda San Leandro 2011 Salon 290 0% < 1% 600 Use of space restricted by regulatory agreementEden Palms Santa Clara San Jose 1996 Daycare 1,984 100% 100% 1,592 Use of space restricted by regulatory agreementExcelsior Building Alameda Oakland 2006 Office 0 100% < 1% 1 Ground lease interest for the school unitGlen Berry Alameda Hayward 2017 Day Care 400 100% < 1% 1,908 Master Tenant Structure with Eden Commercial IncGlen Eden Alameda Hayward 2017 Office 3,667 100% < 1% 34,438 Master Tenant Structure with Eden Commercial IncHana Gardens Contra Costa El Cerrito 2018 Senior Center 2,161 100% < 1% 10 Master Tenant Structure with Eden Commercial IncHillview Glen Santa Clara San Jose 1995 Day Care 2,295 100% 100% 17,028Jasmine Square Santa Clara Morgan Hill 2005 Office & Day Care 8,844 72% 100% 75,763 Master Tenant Structure with Eden Commercial Inc Josephine Lum Lodge Alameda Hayward 2005 Community Kitchen 2,000 100% < 1% 19,200 Use of space restricted by regulatory agreement La Avendida Street Santa Clara Mountain View 2018 Office 12,850 50% 75% 12Nugent Square San Mateo East Palo Alto 2004 Office N/A 100% < 1% 459,609 Use of space restricted by regulatory agreementOhlone Chynoweth Santa Clara San Jose 2000 Retail 4,072 100% 100% 71,654 Master Tenant Structure with Eden Commercial IncOwl's Landing Alameda Livermore 2000 Day Care/ Church 45,821 100% 100% 12 Rengstorff Commercial Santa Clara Mountain View 2015 Restaurant 1,643 100% 50% 86,950 Master Lessee of Studio 819 ApartmentsRidgeview Commons Alameda Pleasanton 1989 Kitchen 2,000 100% 100% 12,912Riverhouse Hotel Contra Costa Martinez 1993 Office & Retail 4,650 100% 100% 26,400Ruby Street Alameda Castro Valley 2019 Retail 0 100% 100% 12,000Sereno Village Solano Vallejo 2003 Day Care 3,600 100% 100% 3,003 Use of space restricted by regulatory agreementStevenson Land Alameda Fremont n/a Land 4.1 (acres) 100% 100% 0 Land leased to an affordable housing projectThe Skeels Apartments Santa Clara Morgan Hill 1995 Restaurant 3,600 100% 100% 91,566Vista Verde Childcare Santa Cruz Freedom 2001 Daycare 5,496 100% 100% 36,552 Break-even property; commercial rent increase is restricted in leaseWexford Way Alameda Dublin 2013 Day Care 4,059 100% < 1% 1,931 Use of space restricted by regulatory agreementWheeler Manor Santa Clara Gilroy 2018 Adult Care/ Office 3,225 100% < 1% 8,412 Use of space restricted by regulatory agreement Timber Street Alameda Newark 2020 Retail 9,000 100% 100.00% 45,407 26 128,166 1,146,509
Real Estate Schedule as of 12/31/2020Cap Rate = 4.50
Real Estate Schedule as of 12/31/2020
Cap Rate = 4.50
Properties in Construction County Location Estimated
Completion
Date
Community
Served
Rentable Area Units Investor Eden
Housing
Ownership
Canyon Flats (890) Alameda Fremont 2021 Family 54,507 71 Wells Fargo < 1%Parrot Street (989) Alameda San Leandro 2021 Family 62 BofA < 1%Alameda Point (969) Alameda Alameda 2020 Family 70 Wells Fargo < 1% 3 203 54,507
Land Held for Development County Location Acerage Eden
Housing
Ownership
Appraised
Value
Land Loan Due Date for
Land Loan
Interest
Reserve
Balance
Comments
Granite Ridge/Sequoia Road (981) Alameda Fremont 1.95 51% 7,500,000 7,500,000 55 years 0Maritime and Harbour Point Drive (983) Sacramento Elk Grove 3.06 60% 2,000,000 2,000,000 2021 47,283 Due June 2021; 36 month extension availableRuby Street (987) Alameda Castro Valley 6.24 100% 4,600,000 4,600,000 2021 105,100 Due April 2021; 12 month extension availableLa Avendida (988) Santa Clara Mountatin View 0.96 75% 9,700,000 10,600,000 2023 745,355 Due January 2023; 6 month extension availableSJ Auzerais (991) Santa Clara San Jose 1.02 100% 12,500,000 12,500,000 55 years 0 Timber Street (995) Alameda Newark 1.06 100% 4,480,000 4,256,000 2022 308,789 Due April 2022; 12 month extension availableOak Grove (657) Solano Vacaville 0.75 100% 275,000 - n/a 0 7 15.04 41,055,000 41,456,000 1,206,527 4
Properties In PredevelopmentEden Housing Inc. is in predevelopment and site control phase at various sites in the Northern California.

Developer Section for 855 E. Laurel Drive for the Design and Development of an Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing Project
Community Development Department
October 4, 2022
Recommendation
• Select Eden Housing Inc. as the developer for the design and development of a 100% Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing Project at 855 E. Laurel Drive; and
• Authorize the City Manager or designee to continue to work with the County in negotiating and drafting an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and modifying the City/County MOU to clarify
development responsibilities, funding, and the equitable split of the Project’s developed housing units applicable to each jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation
855 E. Laurel Drive – RFQ Process
 Overview/Timeline
 City and County joint process
 Published – May 6, 2022
 Original Deadline – June 6, 2022
 Extended Final Deadline – June 24,
2022
 100 % Affordable Multifamily
Rental housing Project
 Minimum Units: 50
 Lease Agreement – 55 Years
 Affordability Restriction – 55-Year
 Facilitated Site Visit
RFQ Process & Evaluation
 Proposals
 8 received
 7 accepted
 1 rejected (late submission)
 Rating and Ranking Committee
 Composed of 6 members
 2 City Staff / 2 County Staff / 2 NCDC Staff
 Interview Committee
 Composed of 7 members
 2 City Staff / 3 County Staff / 2 Community
Members
 4 highest-ranked development teams interviewed
Eden Housing Inc. – RFQ Proposal
 Rating and Ranking
Committee
 Top Score
 Interview
Committee
 Top Score
 Proposed Site Plan
 Scenario A – 132
units (5 Acres)
 Scenario B – 180
Units (6.85 Acres)
Eden Housing Inc. – RFQ Proposal
 Project Phasing
 2 phases
 Potential 3rd Phase
 Through expansion of site to include
additional County land
 Flexibility and Opportunity
 Unit Count
 Unit Bedroom Size Composition
 Targeted clientele
 Tax Credits
 Pursuit of project funding
Eden Housing Inc. – RFQ Proposal
Eden Housing Inc. – RFQ Proposal
Eden Housing Inc. – RFQ Proposal
CEQA Consideration
Strategic Plan Goals & Strategies
 Housing/Affordable Housing
 Effective and Culturally Responsive Government
The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15378.

Fiscal and Sustainability Impact
• No commitment of funds at this time
Departmental Coordination
• City Attorney
• County of Monterey
Questions & Comments
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-526, Version: 1
Alisal Street Complete Streets Before and After Study
No action. This report presents information to the City Council regarding the Alisal Street Complete Streets before and after study.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/28/2022
powered by Legistar™

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2022
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ANDREW EASTERLING, TRAFFIC ENGINEER
TITLE: ALISAL STREET COMPLETE STREETS BEFORE AND AFTER
STUDY
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

This is an informational report only. There is no recommended motion.

RECOMMENDATION:

None.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City recently completed a long-planned project on Alisal Street that reconfigured the street from four (4) lanes to three (3) lanes from Front Street to Blanco Road. The project made safety improvements, installed dedicated bike lanes, enhanced crosswalks, and provided protected left turn phases at the traffic signals. The City collected traffic data before and after the project to analyze the effects of the Downtown Complete Streets Project along Alisal Street. This report summarizes the before and after data collected by City staff.

BACKGROUND:

Planning for the Downtown Complete Streets began as early as 2009 when the City began evaluating circulation and parking downtown. Two of the goals were to reduce the number of traffic collisions along West Alisal and improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility and safety. Staff developed concepts that proposed right-sizing Alisal Street to accommodate all road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and drivers. Portions of the proposed concepts for Alisal Street were incorporated into community discussions for the Downtown Vibrancy Plan and the Marina-Salinas Multimodal Corridor Plan
Council approved the Salinas Downtown Vibrancy Plan in March 2015 of which the Downtown Complete Streets Project is an element. On August 16, 2016, the City Council accepted a federal grant from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for $2.34 Million for Phase I of the Downtown Complete Streets Project. In April 2017, the Council approved a Memorandum of Agreement with TAMC and other central coast agencies to support complete streets improvements on the Marina-Salinas Multimodal Corridor that includes West Alisal Street and Lincoln Avenue.

On July 2, 2019, City Council approved the plans and specifications for the Downtown Complete Streets Project (Resolution No. 21665). On October 8, 2019, City Council awarded the Downtown Complete Streets Project to Monterey Peninsula Engineering in the amount of $7,324,483.99.

Construction began on April 6, 2020, and work was deemed substantially complete on April 23, 2021. The project was accepted for maintenance and responsibility by City Council on June 22, 2021 (Resolution No. 22138).

Before the project broke ground, the City hired a consultant to compile before and after traffic data and prepare a report to measure if the project had its intended effects. The project has been complete for over a year, and traffic has had time to acclimate to the new conditions. The City’s consultant recently finished collecting the after data and has prepared the attached Before and After Report. It should also be noted that the project was constructed during the COVID-19 pandemic when traffic on roadways is lower than usual conditions. The pandemic has had a lingering effect on society and in particularly travel patterns. The before and after data may provide insights but the pandemic may have had a larger effect on traffic conditions than the project did. All data trends shown in the Before and After Study may not be correlated to the project and could be attributed to the pandemic or other influencing factors.

Summary of Findings:
 There is an overall decrease in traffic volumes and speed within Alisal Street with the implementation of complete streets features.
 The project implementation did contribute to traffic calming on Alisal Street.  Traffic Speeds on Alisal Street have declined but the prevailing speeds would still justify keeping the posted speed limits.
 The number of vehicles traveling 10+ mph over the posted speed limit declined significantly within Alisal Street (61 percent) and the adjacent corridors (54 percent).  The traffic volumes have decreased on adjacent corridors. There is no indication that the traffic is diverted from Alisal Street to the adjacent streets due to the roadway capacity reduction on Alisal Street.
 There is an overall decline in pedestrian volumes along Alisal Street and other intersections by 38 percent. The overall decline in pedestrian volumes indicates that the project improvements did not have a direct impact on changes in pedestrian volumes. Travel pattern changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic may be attributed to this change.  The bicycle counts along Alisal Street decreased in the AM peak (31 percent) and mid-day peak (8 percent) while the bicycle counts increased in the PM peak by 15 percent. The increase in the PM peak bicycle usage for recreational purposes along Alisal Street may be attributed to the project improvements but cannot be concluded without additional analysis.  The average travel time has increased in both eastbound and westbound directions during the AM peak and Noon peak. The average travel time has decreased during the PM peak.

The decrease in PM peak traffic volume is more than the decrease in AM peak and noon peak traffic volumes. In addition to a travel lane removal, there are other factors like the exclusive pedestrian phase contributing to delay and subsequent reduction of travel times on Alisal Street. The following recommendations are made to mitigate the unnecessary delays.
a. Remove the exclusive pedestrian phases
b. Consider the implementation of leading pedestrian intervals c. Consider adaptive signal timing strategies on Alisal Street Corridor  A reduction of 63 percent in overall crashes is observed post-project implementation. The reduction of broadside crashes may be attributed to new protected left-turn phase improvements. However, the sample size of crashes is small. It is recommended that the city continuously monitor the crashes to measure the safety effectiveness of the project.  Sales tax receipts for businesses near Alisal Street Corridor have increased by five (5) percent. There may be various factors influencing this increase and may not be attributed to project improvements.

Next Steps:

The City has received feedback from residents and downtown stakeholders. Criticism related to travel time delays and signal operations has been a common concern. While many residents have expressed the desire to reduce delays and allow for more fast-moving traffic, other residents who participated in the Downtown Vibrancy Plan recall that the plan deliberately intended to slow vehicle traffic downtown to create a walkable downtown environment for pedestrians. A goal of the Downtown Vibrancy Plan was to eliminate commuter bypass traffic driving through the heart of Salinas and instead to create a downtown destination worth driving to.

The City can consider implementing the recommended adjustments to the signal system to improve travel times. The pedestrian exclusive phases attribute to longer red times and increased delays for both vehicles and pedestrians. Field observations indicate that the compliance to the pedestrian exclusive phase is poor and that pedestrians still prefer to cross the streets with the traffic flow instead of waiting for the exclusive pedestrian phase. The City could remove the pedestrian exclusive phase which would reduce the overall cycle length and improve travel times. Pedestrian would then cross with vehicle traffic as they tend to already. A leading pedestrian interval could be implemented as an alternative pedestrian feature that improves pedestrian safety without causing excessive delays. Leading pedestrian intervals give pedestrians the walk symbol before the vehicle traffic gets the green light, this treatment gives pedestrians a head start in the intersection so that they are more visible to motorists. The cost to remove the pedestrian exclusive phase and install leading pedestrian intervals is roughly $12,000 per intersection.

Additionally, the City could consider installing an adaptive traffic signal control system on Alisal Street to improve the flow of traffic. Adaptive traffic signal control systems are technologies that take traffic data inputs and make responsive adjustments to signal timing along the corridor to optimize traffic throughput. There are a variety of adaptive traffic signal control systems available, and they generally require software and/or hardware from a 3rd party vendor. Adaptive traffic signal software is typically a proprietary algorithm, which requires a subscription service usually around $10,000 per year per intersection. Once implemented the adaptive software controls the signal timing and the City may not be able make timing adjustments without support from the vendor. The signal upgrades were designed to be compatible with an adaptive traffic signal control system that the City currently has implemented on North Sanborn Road.

Lastly, the Downtown Complete Streets Project is composed of two phases the Alisal Street corridor between Blanco Road and Front Street and the Lincoln Avenue phase corridor between West Market Street and West Alisal Street. The Alisal Complete Streets Project is complete, and the City plans to install the Lincoln Avenue improvements in Spring 2023.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION:

The Alisal Street Complete Streets Before and After Study was presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission on August 11, 2022. The Commission was not asked to make a recommendation but was asked to receive the presentation and provide feedback. The Commission provided comments and suggestions for Alisal Stret. The commissioners were all unanimously in support of the pedestrian exclusive feature. Specifically, the Commissioners mentioned that they would like to see the project features extended down East Alisal Street. One commissioner mentioned that he would like to see more “no right turn on red” signs at Alisal Street and Salinas Street. One commissioner suggested considering removing the protected left turn phase at Alisal Street and Monterey Street. Another commissioner commented that it would be nice to consider dedicated bus lanes on Alisal Street.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The Alisal Street Complete Streets Before and After Study is not a Project as project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This Downtown Complete Streets Project supports the Council’s initiative of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability and Public Safety.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Before and after studies help the City demonstrate if a project had its intended effect. The data can be used to help secure future grant funds for similar safety improvement projects. The Alisal Street Complete Streets Before and After Study cost $49,890.00 to prepare. Funding came from the Traffic and Transportation Division Engineering Services account 1000.50.5122-63.5400, and the Traffic Signal Installation account 5800.50.9654-63.5400.

The total project cost including all soft costs in addition to the construction cost was just over $8.4 million. The project funding came from a variety of sources as shown below.

Measure X bond proceeds $1,365,033.75
Measure X revenue $517,912.54
SB 1 $82,442.30
HSIP $2,199,458.17
RSTP* $3,112,627.65
Measure G $1,140,206.81
Project Total $8,417,681.22
*$300K set aside for Lincoln phase of Downtown Complete Streets ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: West Alisal Street Complete Streets Before and After Study

Market
Alisal Street Complete Streets
Before and After Study
Final
July 2022
Prepared by:

Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page i Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................4 PROJECT.......................................................................................................................................................5 EXPECTED BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT....................................................................................................7 DATA COLLECTION ...............................................................................................................................8 MOBILITY TRENDS – 2019 VS 2021 .....................................................................................................9 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS......................................................................................................12 TRAFFIC VOLUME AND SPEED DATA......................................................................................................12 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS AT INTERSECTIONS ...........................................................................13 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES ...................................................................................................15 TRAVEL TIME .............................................................................................................................................17 REPORTED CRASHES................................................................................................................................18 ECONOMIC EFFECTS.................................................................................................................................20 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................22 Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 1 Executive Summary
This report summarizes traffic and economic conditions before and after the project implementation of the Alisal Street Complete Streets Project. This project is phase I of the Downtown Salinas Complete Streets Project funded by a federal grant from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and a grant from the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) for design.

The project included road diet and other improvements along 1.37 miles of Alisal Street between Acacia Street and Front Street. Alisal Street is in a residential neighborhood providing access to a post office, college, court, school district, etc. The project included the following improvements focusing on bicycle and pedestrian safety.

1. Travel lanes reduction from
two lanes in each direction to
one lane in each direction with
a center turn lane. This lane
reduction facilitated the
accommodation of bike lanes in
each direction.

2. High visibility crosswalks with
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) pedestrian ramps at

1. Front Street

2. Homestead Avenue

3. Acacia Street

3. Curb bulb-outs were included at Homestead Avenue to decrease the crossing distance.

4. Traffic signal improvements throughout the corridor.

The expected benefits from the project improvements are as follows:
• Improved safety through the reduction of crashes and severity of crashes • Create a calmer traffic environment on Alisal Street through speed reduction • Enhance travel experience for bicyclists
• Improved pedestrian safety
The project was implemented between April 2020 and April 2021. Traffic and economic data were collected before and after the project implementation in November 2019 (before the project) and in November 2021 (after the project) to assess the impacts of the project. The following data was used for the before and after data analysis:

Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 2

1. Traffic Volume and Speed

2. Travel Time Runs Along Alisal Street Corridor

3. Vehicle, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Volumes at Intersections

4. Reported Crash Data

5. Sales Tax Receipt for Business Along Alisal Street
The traffic volumes and speeds are expected to decrease along Alisal Street due to the travel lane reductions with a potential concern of an increase in traffic volumes at the other corridors in the vicinity due to potential diversion of traffic from Alisal Street. However, the traffic volumes collected on adjacent corridors in November 2021 are lower than the traffic volumes collected in November 2019 indicating that the traffic conditions did not reach the pre-COVID19 pandemic conditions. Because of this, the data analysis focused on differentiating project impacts and non-project impacts due to changed conditions where needed. Comparisons were made between the post-project conditions and pre-pandemic conditions in 2019 omitting the conditions in 2020 to avoid the effects of pandemic conditions on the data collected.

Based on the findings of the data analysis, the key conclusions were:
• There is an overall decrease in traffic volumes and speed on Alisal Street with the implementation of complete streets features.
• Traffic Speeds on Alisal Street have decreased but the prevailing speeds still justify keeping the posted speed limits.
• The number of vehicles traveling 10+ mph over the posted speed limit has decreased significantly on Alisal Street (61 percent) and the adjacent corridors (54 percent). • The traffic volumes have decreased on adjacent corridors. There is no indication that the traffic is diverted from Alisal Street to the adjacent streets due to the roadway capacity reduction on Alisal Street.
• There is an overall decrease in pedestrian volumes along Alisal Street and other intersections by 38 percent. The overall reduction in pedestrian volumes indicates that the project improvements did not have a direct impact on changes in pedestrian volumes. Travel pattern changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic may be attributed to this change.
• The bicycle volume along Alisal Street decreased in the AM peak (31 percent) and midday peak (8 percent) periods, while the bicycle volume increased in the PM peak by 15 percent. The increase in the PM peak bicycle usage for recreational purposes along Alisal Street may be attributed to the project improvements but cannot be concluded without additional analysis.
• The average travel time has increased in both eastbound and westbound directions during the AM peak and Noon peak periods. The average travel time has decreased during the PM peak. The decrease in PM peak traffic volume is greater than the decrease in AM peak and noon peak traffic volumes. In addition to a travel lane removal, there are other factors like the exclusive pedestrian phase contributing to delay and subsequent reduction of travel times on Alisal Street. The following recommendations are made to mitigate the unnecessary delays.

Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 3 a. Remove the exclusive pedestrian phase
b. Consider the implementation of Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) c. Consider adaptive signal timing strategies on Alisal Street Corridor • A reduction of 63 percent in overall crashes is observed post-project implementation.

The reduction of broadside crashes may be attributed to the new protected left-turn phase improvements. However, the sample size of crashes after the implementation of the project is small. It is recommended that the city continuously monitor the crashes to measure the safety benefits of the project.
• Sales tax receipts for businesses near Alisal Street Corridor have increased by five (5) percent. There may be various factors influencing this increase and may not be completely attributed to the project improvements.

Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 4 Introduction
The Downtown Complete Streets Project intends to make travel on West Alisal Street and Lincoln Avenue corridors safer, and efficient, and serve all modes of transportation. The first phase included roadway re-striping, signal improvements, and crosswalk improvements along West Alisal Street from Acacia Street to Front Street. Figure 1 illustrates the roadway conditions before and after the improvements. The project is funded by a federal grant from the Highways Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and a grant from the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) for design. The second phase will include additional intersection improvements, continuing complete streets improvements, and enhanced bus service improvements along Lincoln Avenue.

This Report summarizes the traffic and economic conditions before and after the project implementation.

Figure 1: Roadway Configuration Before and After the improvements Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 5

PROJECT
The Downtown Salinas Complete Streets Improvements project is divided into two phases. Phase I improvements consisted of improvements along Alisal Street from Acacia Street to Front Street. Figure 2 illustrates the project limits and locations of pedestrian crosswalk improvements. Phase II of the complete streets project will include improvements on Lincoln Street and Main Street.

Figure 2: Project Limits and Study intersections
Phase I improvements along Alisal Street included the following:

1. Travel lanes reduction from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction with a center turn lane. This lane reduction facilitated the accommodation of bike lanes in each direction (refer to Figure 3).

2. High visibility crosswalks with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) pedestrian ramps at

1. Front Street (refer to Figure 4)

2. Homestead Avenue (refer to Figure 5)

3. Acacia Street (refer to Figure 5)

3. Curb bulb-outs were included at Homestead Avenue to decrease the crossing distance.

4. Traffic signal improvements throughout the corridor.

Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 6 Figure 3: Roadway Reconfiguration
Figure 4: Improvements at Front Street
Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 7

EXPECTED BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT
The Downtown Complete Street Phase I project is essentially a “road diet” project along Alisal Street between Acacia Street and Front Street. Road diet projects are typically street reconfiguration projects that reduce the number of travel lanes in a street, most often reducing the number of travel lanes and adding a two-way center left-turn lane. According to Federal Highway Administration1 (FHWA), there is strong research evidence that supports the following:
• Safety benefits can be achieved by converting four-lane undivided streets to three-lane cross-sections with two-way-left-turn lanes.
• The provision of a separate space for the exclusive use of bicycles improves safety over a shared travel lane alternative.
• Reduction in pedestrian crash risk can be achieved when crossing two- and three-lane roads compared to roads with four or more lanes.
• Reducing travel speeds helps to reduce the severity of crashes. 1 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/road_diets.cfm#:~:text=Benefits%20of%20Road%20Diet%20installations,la nes%20for%20pedestrians%20to%20cross.

Figure 5: Improvements at Homestead Avenue and Acacia Street Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 8 Data Collection
To evaluate the benefits of the road diet implementation on Alisal Street, the following data was collected in November 2019, before the project was implemented, and then again in November 2021, after the project was implemented. The data collection process followed the standard methodologies and practices commonly used by public agencies across the nation.

Data were collected at locations directly impacted by the project and also at locations outside of the project limits to objectively differentiate the project impacts and changes that are nonproject related. The following data sets were collected before and after the project implementation:

1. Traffic Volume and Speed

2. Travel Time Runs Along Alisal Street Corridor

3. Vehicle, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Volumes at Intersections

4. Reported Crash Data

5. Sales Tax Receipt for Business Along Alisal Street
Figure 6 shows the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and speed data collection locations and the intersections where turning movement counts and pedestrian and bicycle counts were collected.

Figure 6: Data Collection Locations
Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 9 List of ADT and speed data collection locations:

1. Central Avenue between Nacional Street and Cypress Street

2. W Alisal Street between Cayuga Street and Church Street

3. E Alisal Street between Soledad Street and California Street

4. John Street between Main Street and Monterey Street

5. Main Street between John Street and Winham Street

6. Homestead Avenue between Marion Avenue and Lorimer Street

7. Iverson Street between Geil Street and Acacia Street

8. Acacia Street between Camden Way and Chalon Circle

9. Alisal Street between Loma Vista Drive and Carmelita Drive

10. Market Street between Monterey Street and Pajaro Street List of turning movement counts, pedestrian and bicycle counts were collected at intersections:

1. Alisal Street and Acacia Street

2. Alisal Street and Homestead Avenue

3. Alisal Street and Church Street

4. Alisal Street and Lincoln Avenue

5. Alisal Steet and Salinas Street

6. Alisal Street and Main Street

7. Alisal Street and Monterey Street

8. Alisal Street and Pajaro Street

9. Alisal Street and Front Street

10. East Gabilan Street and Main Street

11. Central Avenue and Lincoln Street
Mobility Trends – 2019 vs 2021
Traffic patterns have changed across the nation with changes in stay-at-home orders during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Even after the restrictions are lifted, the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on roadway traffic can still be found in some places due to changes in employment and the provision of telecommuting options provided by many employers in the area. This section includes a comparison of mobility trends during the week of Jan 6, 2020 (prepandemic), and the week of November 15, 2021 (post-pandemic), in the City of Salinas, to gain insights into the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on traffic data. These trends were reported by ‘Replica2’, a Big-Data tool that provides near-real-time information on traffic patterns, trends, and mobility preferences.

A summary of mobility trends is indicated in Figure 7 to Figure 9. As indicated by the mobility trends, work-based and home-based trips have increased in the City of Salinas, whereas trips for other purposes have decreased.
• Total trips in the city of Salinas have increased by approximately 34 percent. 2 https://replicahq.com/
Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 10 • Trips starting and ending within the City of Salinas have decreased by 2.5 percent. • Home-based trips increased by 59 percent. Home-based trips have the home as either the origin or destination.
• Work-based trips increased by 71 percent. Work-based trips have the workplace as either the origin or destination.
• Trips for eating purposes decreased by 15 percent.
• Social trips have increased by 8 percent.
• Shopping trips have decreased by 2 percent.
• Recreational trips have decreased by 27 percent.
• The number of transit trips has decreased by 14 percent.

Figure 7: Total Trips in City of Salinas
Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 11 Figure 8: Number of Trips by Purpose
Figure 9: Transit Trends
Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 12 As shown in Figure 10, the trip trends by the hour of the day have not changed much before and after the pandemic.

Data Analysis and Findings

TRAFFIC VOLUME AND SPEED DATA
24-hour Automatic recorder counts of traffic volume and speed were taken at ten (10) locations along Alisal Street and other corridors in the project vicinity for three (3) days in November 2019 and three (3) days in November 2021. With the road diet implementation, a reduction in traffic volume on Alisal Street is expected. Traffic volume and speeds on Alisal Streets and other segments in the vicinity were collected to capture the impacts of project implementation on traffic and speeds. The findings are summarized in Table 1.

Alisal Street Traffic Volume and Speed Findings

1. Traffic volumes within Alisal Street declined an average of 27 percent.

2. Speeds within Alisal Street decreased by an average of 2 mph.

3. The number of vehicles traveling at 10+ mph over the posted speed limit within Alisal Street decreased by 61 percent.

AreaTraffic Volume and Speed Findings

1. Traffic volumes within the vicinity of Alisal Street declined by an average of 13 percent.

2. Speeds within the adjacent corridors decreased by an average of 1 mph.

3. The number of vehicles traveling 10+ mph over the posted speed limit increased on John Street and Homestead Avenue while the number decreased for other locations.

Figure 10: Trips by Hour of the Day
Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 13 The average percentage of vehicles traveling at 10+ mph over the posted speed limit in the area decreased by 54 percent.

There is an overall decrease in traffic volume and speed within Alisal Street and the adjacent corridors. There is no indication that the traffic is diverted from Alisal Street to the adjacent streets due to the capacity reduction on Alisal Street. Traffic speeds within Alisal Street have decreased but the prevailing speed would still justify maintaining the posted speed limits. The number of vehicles traveling at 10+ mph over the posted speed limit within Alisal Street and within the adjacent corridors declined significantly.

Table 1: Traffic Volumes and Speed

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS AT INTERSECTIONS
Turning movement counts were collected at intersections along Alisal Street during the AM, mid-day, and PM peak periods on November 21, 2019, and November 16, 2021. These counts were collected at nine (9) intersections along Alisal Street and two (2) other intersections in the vicinity. The traffic volumes were tabulated and compared between before and after project conditions for Alisal Street intersections and non-Alisal Street intersections. Using the insights Vehicles % Vehicles %
Before 6,130 -1,767 -29 34 52
After 4,364 34 37
Before 13,040 -4,115 -32 33 27
After 8,926 31 47
Before 13,494 -3,739 -28 33 436
After 9,755 31 146
Before 13404 -1,095 -8 32 8
After 12,309 30 39
Before 24,230 -2,482 -10 29 33
After 21,749 26 2
Before 3,626 -566 -16 30 13
After 3,061 29 21
Before 4,044 -343 -8 29 53
After 3,701 30 13
Before 5,210 -671 -13 36 463
After 4,539 35 104
Before 11,061 -2,266 -20 41 212
After 8,795 38 68
Before 21,286 -3,185 -15 34 1,236
After 18,101 33 639
Alisal St -58
Market St -48
Iverson St -75
Acacia St -78
Main St -94
Homestead Ave +
E Alisal St -67
John St +
Central Ave -29
W Alisal St +
Street
Volume
(ADT)
Volume Change 85% (mph)
10+ mph over
speed limit
Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 14 provided by Replica’s mobility trends, efforts were made to differentiate the impacts of the project and changes that are not project related.

Vehicular Traffic volumes
With the road diet implementation, the vehicular capacity of Alisal Street has decreased, and hence the traffic volumes are expected to decrease. The vehicular volumes are presented in Table 2 and the summary of the changes before and after the project implementation is provided in Table 3. The vehicular volumes at intersections at Alisal Street intersections are illustrated in Figure 11.

1. The traffic volume reduction on Alisal Street is observed more at the intersection located in the middle of the project limits as compared to the intersections in the outer project limits. This indicates that the volume reduction on Alisal Street intersections is due to the reduced capacity of the roadway.

2. The percentage reduction in traffic at the Alisal Street intersections is similar during all three peaks, including the AM Peak, mid-day peak, and PM peak.

3. The percentage reduction in traffic at non-Alisal Street intersections is significantly higher during the mid-day peak as compared to the AM and PM peaks. The higher decrease in mid-day peak could be attributed to the lower number of trips to restaurants in the downtown area because of the effects of the pandemic. The mid-day peak volumes may not be the best metric to evaluate the impacts of the project.

Table 2: Traffic Volumes at Intersections
Table 3: Traffic Volumes at Intersections - After vs Before Location AM peak Noon Peak PM Peak Daily
Alisal Street
Intersections
-21% -23% -26% -24%
Before After Before After Before After
Total Volume Total Volume Total Volume Total Volume Total Volume Total Volume

1. Alisal St/Acacia St 1,436 1,229 1,037 921 1,638 1,264

2.Homestead Ave/ Alisal St 1,525 1,223 1,151 844 1,662 1,122

3.Church St/Alisal St 1,193 948 1,074 794 1,362 948

4.Lincoln Ave/Alisal St 1,465 1,075 1,428 1,007 1,737 1,140

5.Salinas St/Alisal St 2,027 1,407 1,946 1,332 2,302 1,392

6.Main St/Alisal St 1,196 828 1,394 966 1,578 1,047

7.Monterey St/Alisal St 1,628 1,193 1,767 1,419 2,127 1,665

8.Pajaro St/Alisal St 1,432 1,185 1,564 1,161 1,979 1,457

9.Front St/Alisal St 2,552 2,274 2,411 2,177 2,931 2,768

10.Main St/Gabilan St 397 381 602 463 594 504

11.Lincoln Ave/Central Ave 792 755 1607 638 916 745
Total 15643 12498 15981 11722 18826 14052
Location
AM Peak Noon Peak PM Peak
Alisal Street Intersections
Non Alisal Street Intersections
Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 15 Other Intersections -4% -50% -17% -29%
Total -20% 28% -27% -24%
The decrease in vehicle traffic volumes both at Alisal Street intersections and at non-Alisal Street intersections indicates that the decrease in traffic volumes at Alisal Street intersections cannot be attributed to the project improvements alone. The lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic situation can be the additional cause for this decrease. The fact that the decrease in traffic at Alisal Street intersections during the AM Peak and PM Peak is more than the decrease in traffic at other intersections, it may be concluded that the project contributed to traffic volume reduction on Alisal Street, which was expected.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES
Bicycle and pedestrian volumes were collected at intersections along Alisal Street during the AM, mid-day, and PM peak periods on November 21, 2019, and November 16, 2021. For comparison purposes, bicycle and pedestrian volumes were collected at two other intersections outside of Alisal Street.

Pedestrian Volumes
The project improvements included pedestrian safety features such as high visibility crosswalks and ADA ramp improvements at Front Street, Homestead Avenue, and Acacia Street, and curb bulb-outs at Homestead Avenue. The project did not include any improvements that have the potential to increase the pedestrian volumes along the Alisal Corridor and hence increase in pedestrian volumes with the project implementation is not expected. The following observations can be made with the pedestrian counts collected at nine (9) intersections along Alisal Street and two (2) other intersections in the vicinity (Table 4).

1. Pedestrian volumes have decreased after the project both at intersections along Alisal Street and other intersections in the project vicinity by approximately 38 percent. The overall decline in pedestrian volumes indicates that the project improvements did not have a direct impact on changes in pedestrian volumes.

Figure 11: Traffic Volumes at Intersections
Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 16 Table 4: Pedestrian Volumes
Bicycle Volumes
The project improvements included the implementation of bicycle lanes along Alisal Street.

While having a dedicated space for bicycles primarily increases the safety of bicyclists, it could also promote increased usage of the space by bicyclists. The following observations were made on how the bicycle volumes changed after the project is implemented in comparison to the bicycle volumes before the project (Table 5 and Table 6).

1. The bicycle counts along Alisal Street decreased in the AM peak significantly (31%).

2. The bicycle counts along Alisal Street decreased moderately (8%) at the noon peak.

3. The bicycle counts along Alisal Street increased at the PM peak (15%).

Table 5: Bicycle Volumes
Before After Before After Before After
Total Volume Total Volume Total Volume Total Volume Total Volume Total Volume

1.Alisal St/Acacia St 24 23 14 8 39 12

2.Homestead Ave/ Alisal St 61 47 69 40 69 22

3.Church St/Alisal St 142 57 144 72 87 37

4. Lincoln Ave/Alisal St 48 34 177 69 60 35

5. Salinas St/Alisal St 21 24 175 26 55 34

6.Main St/Alisal St 47 36 189 138 52 62

7.Monterey St/Alisal St 31 28 45 55 44 32

8.Pajaro St/Alisal St 16 21 29 18 27 19

9.Front St/Alisal St 22 14 13 19 19 19

10.Main St/Gabilan St 107 72 354 271 168 108

11.Lincoln Ave/Central Ave 64 41 77 53 32 28
Total 583 397 1286 769 652 408
Location
AM Peak Noon Peak PM Peak
Before After Before After Before After
Total Volume Total Volume Total Volume Total Volume Total Volume Total Volume

1. Alisal St/Acacia St 3 1 5 2 3 9

2.Homestead Ave/ Alisal St 6 1 5 6 5 11

3.Church St/Alisal St 7 1 5 4 3 3

4.Lincoln Ave/Alisal St 8 2 11 6 3 4

5.Salinas St/Alisal St 1 6 5 3 5 6

6.Main St/Alisal St 1 2 5 9 4 3

7.Monterey St/Alisal St 2 1 6 9 2 4

8.Pajaro St/Alisal St 5 4 13 8 8 3

9.Front St/Alisal St 2 6 8 11 8 4

10.Main St/Gabilan St 6 1 5 8 6 5

11.Lincoln Ave/Central Ave 6 1 5 8 7 5
Total 47 26 73 74 54 57
Location
AM Peak Noon Peak PM Peak
Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 17 Table 6: Bicycle Volumes at Intersections - After vs Before Location AM peak Mid-Day PM Peak Daily
Alisal Street Intersections -31% -8% 15% -7%
A decrease in bicycle volumes was observed along Alisal Street during the AM peak and noon peak, while there is an increase in bicycle volumes during the PM peak. The increase in PM peak bicycle usage along Alisal Street may indicate the use of the new bicycle lanes by recreational bicycle users but cannot be concluded without additional analysis.

TRAVEL TIME
With the project, the lane configuration on Alisal Street is changed reduced from two vehicle travel lanes in each direction with no center lanes to one lane in each direction with a center turn lane and bicycle lanes. With the decrease in vehicle roadway capacity, there is a concern of potential congestion and longer travel times. To evaluate the impact of modified lane configuration on Alisal Street, travel time runs were conducted along Alisal Street between Acacia Street and Front Street on November 19, 2019, and November 16, 2021. The stats analysis summary of travel time runs is summarized in Figure 12.

The results indicate that the average travel time has increased for both eastbound and westbound directions during the AM peak and mid-day peak but decreased during the PM peak. The combined increase in the travel time overall during the peak periods is five (5) percent. Average speed and total delay statistics indicate the same similar trend. With a combined decrease of four (4) percent decrease in average speed and five (5) percent decrease in total delay, the project implementation has a calming effect on Alisal Street traffic.

The differences in AM peak/Mid-day peak and PM peak travel time and delay results can be attributed to the differences in traffic signal operations by the time of day. Observations by city staff over the past two years from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic indicate that the traffic conditions in the city have been highly volatile with drastic changes from week to week. This situation poses challenges with the traffic signal timings. The Alisal Street Corridor signals currently operate on a coordinated time of day plan during the PM peak and use peer-to-peer functions during all other hours of the day including AM peak and Mid-day peak hours.

In addition to the decrease in lane capacity, other reasons can be attributed to the delays on Alisal Street after project implementation. The traffic signals on Alisal Street now have longer red times when compared to before with the incorporation of a protected left-turn phase and exclusive pedestrian phase. The pedestrian exclusive phase is not well received by the users as indicated by the field observations made by the city staff and the feedback received by the city from the public. Field observations indicate that the compliance to the pedestrian exclusive phase is poor and that pedestrians still prefer to cross the streets with the traffic flow instead of waiting for the exclusive pedestrian phase.

The following recommendations are made to mitigate the increase in delays on Alisal Street.

Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 18

1. Remove the exclusive pedestrian phase that is causing unnecessary delays to pedestrians and vehicles.

2. Consider a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) on all crossings. An LPI typically gives pedestrians a 3-7 second head start before the vehicles are given a green indication. This head start can better establish the presence of pedestrians in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn right or left.

3. To address the unpredicted traffic conditions, adaptive traffic signal timing is recommended on Alisal Street. Adaptive signal control technology adjusts the timing of red, yellow, and green lights to accommodate changing traffic patterns and ease traffic congestion.

Figure 12: Travel Time Runs - Before and After

REPORTED CRASHES
The timeline of the project’s construction was from April 2020 to April 2021. Reported crashes were evaluated in the months from May to December before and after the implementation of a new roadway configuration using crash records from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and the Salinas Police Department. There were 8 reported crashes along Alisal Street from Acacia Street to Front Street in eight months of 2019, and 12 reported crashes in Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 19 eight months of 2020. This number has been reduced to three (3) in 2021. This accounts for a 63 percent reduction of crashes in 2021 when compared to crashes in 2019.

Transportation Injury Mapping System3 data was used to analyze the type of crashes reported during these three years. The year 2020 was skipped for comparisons to avoid any impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Figure 13 illustrates the type of crashes reported on Alisal Street in the years 2019 and 2021. The decrease in broadside crashes may indicate benefits from the new protected left-turn phase. This is a small sample size that does not indicate definitive safety benefits of project implementation. It is recommended that the city continues to collect collision data to measure the safety effectiveness of the project. 3 https://tims.berkeley.edu/
Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 20

ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Sales tax receipts were analyzed to evaluate the impacts of the project on businesses along Alisal Street. This dataset is the best available indicator of economic activity in the area.

However, it does not reflect business activity in the area that is not subject to sales tax, such as personal services (lawyer, dentist, plumber, etc.). Sales tax data for four quarters in three categories were compared before and after the project’s implementation. The three categories are Food Products, General Retail, and All Others.

1. Food Products: Category that includes food stores (non-grocery), quick service restaurants, grocery stores, casual dining, and wineries.

Figure 13: Reported Crashes – Before vs After
May 2019 to December 2019
May 2021 to December 2021
Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 21

2. General Retail: Category that includes women’s apparel, art/gift/novelty stores, sporting goods/bike stores, jewelry stores, and specialty stores.

3. All Others: Category that includes all other businesses that are not included in the Food Products and General Retail categories.

Figure 14 summarizes the sales tax receipts for businesses near Alisal Street Corridor. Below are the key findings of the analysis:

1. Sales tax receipts in 2020 are significantly lower than in other years and are not used for comparison purposes.

2. Sales tax receipts in the “Food Products” category in 2021 are one (1) percent less than that of 2019.

3. Sales tax receipts in the “General Retail” category in 2021 are twelve percent less than that in 2019.

4. Sales tax receipts in the “All Others” category in 2021 are eight (8) percent more than that of 2019.

5. Over Sales tax receipts in 2021 is five (5) percent more than that of in 2019.

There may be several factors influencing the sales tax revenues. A substantial decrease in sales tax revenue in 2020 indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic did affect the sales tax revenues.

The economy has re-opened in 2021 and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on sales are presumed to be subsided. However, the 5 percent increase in sales tax revenue may not be completely attributed to the project improvements.

Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 22 Figure 14: Summary of Sales Tax Receipts
Conclusions
The Alisal Street Complete Streets project is a road diet project with the following assumed benefits.
• Improved safety through the reduction of crashes and severity of crashes • Create a calmer traffic environment on Alisal Street through speed reduction • Enhance travel for bicyclists
• Improved pedestrian safety
While this report attempts to quantify the benefits of the project improvements on Alisal Street, an attempt has been made to assess the project impacts on traffic volumes and speeds on adjacent streets as well.

It should also be noted that the project is implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic when traffic on roadways is lower than usual conditions. The traffic volumes collected on Alisal Street and adjacent corridors in November 2021 are lower than the traffic volumes collected in November 2019 indicating that the traffic conditions did not reach the pre-pandemic conditions even when the data from Replica indicated that there is an overall increase in trips to and from Salinas in 2021. Because of this the data analysis also focused on differentiating project impacts and non-project impacts where needed. Comparisons were made between the post-project $0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
2019 Q3-Q4 2020 Q3-Q4 2021 Q3-Q4
$9,196 $5,218 $9,105
$6,774 $8,423 $5,953
$52,321
$30,028
$56,420
Food Products General Retail All Others
Alisal Street Complete Streets | Before and After Study – Draft | Page 23 conditions and pre-pandemic conditions in 2019 omitting the conditions in 2020 to avoid the effects of pandemic conditions on the data collected.

Based on the findings of the data analysis, the key conclusions are:
• There is an overall decrease in traffic volumes and speed within Alisal Street with the implementation of complete streets features.
• The project implementation did contribute to traffic calming on Alisal Street. • Traffic Speeds on Alisal Street have declined but the prevailing speeds would still justify keeping the posted speed limits.
• The number of vehicles traveling 10+ mph over the posted speed limit declined significantly within Alisal Street (61 percent) and the adjacent corridors (54 percent). • The traffic volumes have decreased on adjacent corridors. There is no indication that the traffic is diverted from Alisal Street to the adjacent streets due to the roadway capacity reduction on Alisal Street.
• There is an overall decline in pedestrian volumes along Alisal Street and other intersections by 38 percent. The overall decline in pedestrian volumes indicates that the project improvements did not have a direct impact on changes in pedestrian volumes.

Travel pattern changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic may be attributed to this change. • The bicycle counts along Alisal Street decreased in the AM peak (31 percent) and midday peak (8 percent) while the bicycle counts increased in the PM peak by 15 percent.

The increase in the PM peak bicycle usage for recreational purposes along Alisal Street may be attributed to the project improvements but cannot be concluded without additional analysis.
• The average travel time has increased in both eastbound and westbound directions during the AM peak and Noon peak. The average travel time has decreased during the PM peak. The decrease in PM peak traffic volume is more than the decrease in AM peak and noon peak traffic volumes. In addition to a travel lane removal, there are other factors like the exclusive pedestrian phase contributing to delay and subsequent reduction of travel times on Alisal Street. The following recommendations are made to mitigate the unnecessary delays.
a. Remove the exclusive pedestrian phase
b. Consider the implementation of LPI
c. Consider adaptive signal timing strategies on Alisal Street Corridor • A reduction of 63 percent in overall crashes is observed post-project implementation.

The reduction of broadside crashes may be attributed to new protected left-turn phase improvements. However, the sample size of crashes is small. It is recommended that the city continuously monitor the crashes to measure the safety effectiveness of the project. • Sales tax receipts for businesses near Alisal Street Corridor have increased by five (5) percent. There may be various factors influencing this increase and may not be attributed to project improvements.

Alisal Street Complete Streets Before and After Study
This is an information report only. There is no recommend motion.

Andrew Easterling, Traffic Engineer
Public Works Department
October 4, 2022
Executive Summary
 The City recently completed a long-planned project on Alisal Street  The project reconfigured the street from 4 lanes to three 3 lanes from Front Street to Blanco Road, and installed dedicated bike lanes, enhanced crosswalks, and provided protected left turn phases at the traffic signals.  The City collected traffic data before and after the project to analyze the effects of the Downtown Complete Streets Project along Alisal Street. This report summarizes the before and after data collected by City staff.

Background
Findings
Data Collected
November 2019,
and
November 2021
Findings
Data Collected November 2019, and November 2021
Intersection
Volumes
AM Peak Noon Peak PM Peak Peak Average
Vehicles -21% -23% -26% -24%
Pedestrians -31% -40% -37% -36%
Bikes -31% -8% +15% -7%
Findings
Findings
63% Reduction
in overall
Collisions
80% Reduction
in Broadside
Collisions
Findings
Overall Collision
Severity
Reduction.

May 2019 to December 2019
May 2021 to December 2021
1 Pedestrian
1 Bike
0 Pedestrian
0 Bike
Findings
Project Recognition
Next Steps
Spring
2023
• The City has received feedback from residents and downtown stakeholders. • Criticism related to delays and signal operations has been a common concern.

Next Steps
Options the City can consider to improve traffic flow
110 seconds
110 seconds
85 seconds
Next Steps
Options the City can consider to improve traffic flow
Recommendation
Receive the presentation and provide feedback.

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-518, Version: 1
Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) Bus Stops Red Zones
Approve a Resolution establishing a total of approximately 140 feet of bus stop red zones along Van Buren Avenue south of Russell Road and Van Buren Avenue north of Eisenhower Street.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/28/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2022
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION FROM: DAVID JACOBS, P.E., L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ANDREW EASTERLING, TRAFFIC ENGINEER
TITLE: MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT (MST) BUS STOPS RED ZONES RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution establishing 140 feet of bus stop red zones along Van Buren Avenue south of Russell Road and Van Buren Avenue north of Eisenhower Street.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council approve a Resolution establishing 140 feet of bus stop red zones along Van Buren Avenue south of Russell Road and Van Buren Avenue north of Eisenhower Street.

DISCUSSION:

Monterey Salinas Transit (MST) is the provider of public transit services throughout Monterey County and operates an extensive network of bus routes through Salinas. On February 10, 2022, the Traffic and Transportation Commission received a presentation on the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA). This included re-evaluating where and how often the bus should run in and around Salinas. The COA was adopted by the MST board on February 14, 2022 (Attachment 1). The network changes are now starting to go into effect.

Line 49 – Santa Rita via Northridge currently services the Santa Rita community on Bolivar Street, Van Buren Avenue between Bolivar Street and San Juan Grade Road, and San Juan Grade Road between Van Buren Avenue and North Main Street. MST is expanding its service along Van Buren Avenue and updating the bus stop locations to its Line 49. MST is requesting the installation of bus stop red zones to ensure buses can access the curb at the new bus stops. Each stop will require 90 feet of clear curbside access to ensure a 40-foot-long bus can access the curb. At Van Buren Avenue near Russel Road 90 feet of curbside is proposed as a bus stop red zones. At Van Buren Avenue near Eisenhower Street the proposed bus stop is located between two 20-foot-wide driveways and only 50 feet of curbside is proposed as bus stop red zone. These red zones will include the letters “BUS ZONE” in white stencil on the top of the red curb makings. Parking in a bus zone is a higher citation than parking in a typical red zone.

Page | 2
Line 45 – East Market-Creekbridge currently provides service between the Salinas Transit Center, East Market St, North Sanborn Rd, Freedom Parkway, Constitution Blvd and Independence Blvd (Creekbridge), East Boronda Rd and Northridge Mall. MST is modifying the route to provide a loop at Creekbridge and drop service on Boronda Rd and Northridge Mall. The loop will include new stops at Nantucket Blvd at Independence Blvd, Nantucket Blvd at Hemingway Dr, Nantucket Blvd at Declaration St, Constitution Blvd at Nantucket Blvd, and Constitution Blvd at Beacon Hill Dr. Each of the new bus stop locations for Line 45 are currently no parking zones, and no additional red zones would be required.

Several of the proposed new bus stops will require ADA landings adjacent to the face of curb. The City will coordinate the installation of the new ADA landings using the job order contract. MST will reimburse the City the cost of the installations.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION:

At its September 8th, 2022 the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to approve a motion recommending to City Council the approval of a Resolution establishing 140 feet of bus stop red zones along Van Buren Avenue south of Russell Road and Van Buren Avenue north of Eisenhower Street.

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:

Bus stops red zones support the Council’s goal of “Public Safety” and “Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability”.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no impact to the General Fund with the proposed improvements. MST will reimburse the City for the cost to install the red zones and the ADA landings.

Scope of Work Estimated Cost
Red Zones (Installed by City Staff) $200.00
3 MST Landings (JOC Contractor) $9,114.00
Total Estimate $9,314.00
ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1: MST Comprehensive Operational Analysis
Attachment 2: MST Existing Network Map
Attachment 3: Proposed Changes to Lines 45 and 49
Attachment 4: Proposed Bus Stop Red Zones
- 1 -
RESOLUTION NO. __________________ (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 140 FEET OF BUS

STOP RED ZONES ALONG VAN BUREN AVENUE SOUTH OF RUSSELL ROAD AND VAN

BUREN AVENUE NORTH OF EISENHOWER STREET
WHEREAS, On February 14, 2022 the Monterey-Salinas Transit agency adopted the Comprehensive Operational Analysis which proposes modifications to the existing network of bus routes in the City of Salinas; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey-Salinas Transit agency is now preparing to re-route segments of lines 45 and 49; and
WHEREAS, two new red zones are required for new proposed Monterey-Salinas Transit stops on Van Buren Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Public Works staff recommend that the City Council approve a Resolution establishing 140 feet of bus stop red zones along Van Buren Avenue south of Russell Road and Van Buren Avenue north of Eisenhower Street; and
WHEREAS, The Traffic and Transportation Commission unanimously (6-0) to approve a motion recommending to City Council the approval of a Resolution establishing 140 feet of bus stop red zones along Van Buren Avenue south of Russell Road and Van Buren Avenue north of Eisenhower Street; and
WHEREAS, 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; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves a Resolution establishing 140 feet of bus stop red zones along Van Buren Avenue south of Russell Road and Van Buren Avenue north of Eisenhower Street.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 4th day of October, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
- 2 -
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Comprehensive Operational Analysis
Final Network Plan
February 2022
“Advocating and delivering quality
public transportation as a leader within
our community and industry.”
Dan Boyle
& Associates, Inc.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan | 2 Monterey-Salinas Transit Table of Contents
1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 3 Why does MST’s network of bus lines need a redesign?.................................................................4 The Challenge of Planning a Good Transit Network in Monterey County.......................................9 2 Key Choices in Redesigning the Network......................................................... 12 Ridership vs. Coverage ...................................................................................................................13 Local vs. Regional Service ...............................................................................................................14 Equality vs. Equity...........................................................................................................................15 3 How Public Input Shaped This Plan................................................................... 16 Phase 1: Understanding the Community’s Values and Priorities .....................................................17 Phase 2: Input Received on the Draft Plan ......................................................................................19 How Comments on the Draft Plan Were Incorporated in the Final Plan .........................................20 4 Key Elements of the Plan.................................................................................. 21 Policy Direction ...............................................................................................................................22 Timeline and Funding Scenarios .....................................................................................................23 Existing vs. Future Network Maps – Existing ..................................................................................24 Existing vs. Future Network Maps – Medium Scenario ...................................................................25 Existing vs. Future Network Maps – Low Scenario..........................................................................26 Existing vs. Future Network Maps – High Scenario.........................................................................27 Higher frequencies and more consistent hours...............................................................................28 Timed transfers for faster local and regional travel. ........................................................................29 Service that is more direct, and less specialized. ............................................................................30 5 Existing vs. Proposed Service by Area ............................................................. 31 Salinas – Existing Service ................................................................................................................32 Salinas – Medium Scenario..............................................................................................................33 Salinas – How many people would be near service? .......................................................................34 Salinas – Low, Medium and High Scenarios ....................................................................................35 Monterey Bay & Peninsula – Existing ..............................................................................................36 Monterey Bay & Peninsula – Medium Scenario ...............................................................................37 Monterey Bay & Peninsula – How many people would be near service?.........................................38 Monterey Bay & Peninsula – Low, Medium and High Scenarios ......................................................39 Regional Service – Existing .............................................................................................................40 Regional Service – Medium Scenario..............................................................................................41 Regional Service – Low, Medium and High Scenarios.....................................................................42 Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – Existing...........................................................43 Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – Medium Scenario............................................44 Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – Low Scenario ..................................................45 Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – High Scenario .................................................46 6 How would this plan make transit more useful?............................................... 47 More people would be near service, and service would be more frequent....................................48 Most transit trips would take far less time. ......................................................................................49 Change in Average Travel Times Between 15 Key Locations .........................................................50 Trip Examples - Salinas and Boronda ..............................................................................................51 Trip Examples - Salinas to Monterey ...............................................................................................53 Trip Examples - Monterey Bay & Peninsula .....................................................................................54 Trip Examples - Regional.................................................................................................................57 7 Next Steps........................................................................................................ 60 Considerations for Network Implementation..................................................................................61 Project Timeline ..............................................................................................................................62 Appendix A - Summary of Phase 2 Public Outreach Meetings | 3 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
1 Introduction
JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 4
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Why does MST’s network of bus lines need a redesign?
Figure 1: Map of MST’s fixed-route network in Monterey and Seaside, with lines color-coded by frequency.

Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) is considering significant changes to its bus network in the course of this study, the Comprehensive
Operational Analysis (COA). These changes are
being proposed in response to:
• An initial assessment of the issues faced
by the existing network, detailed in the
Choices Report1.
• A consultation with stakeholders and
members of the public about their values
and priorities for transit; and conversations
with bus riders about their experiences with
the existing system.
• Direction from the MST Board of Directors’
Operations Performance Committee to
make changes that respond to the concerns
we heard.

The key reasons for change are summarized in
this section.

1. The last full system
review was over two
decades ago.

Many transit agencies review their entire
network every five to ten years, to make sure
service matches the community’s needs. The
last time MST undertook such a comprehensive study was in the late 1990s.

Many changes have taken place in and around
Monterey County since then. But without
consistent policy on where and how much
service to provide, MST has responded separately to many individual requests for service.

This approach has helped meet well-identified
needs, but has not always contributed to more
effective service for everyone.
1 The full Choices Report and other materials related to this study can be consulted on MST’s website at http://mst.org/coa

2. Most lines operate at
very low frequencies.

The result is a network of many overlapping
lines, each doing something that someone
requested, but mostly running too infrequently
to be worth the wait for anyone else travelling
in the same direction.

Only two MST lines consistently run every
30 minutes or better on weekdays: Line 41 in
Salinas, and Line 20 from Monterey to Salinas.

Almost everything else runs once an hour or
less2.

In fact, nearly half of MST lines operate once
an hour or less3, connecting small numbers of
people to specific buildings or facilities. These
specialized and very infrequent services tend
to overlap with other lines, resulting in a very
complex web of service. The same trip might
require using different routes at different times
of day, and take very different amounts of
time, regardless of traffic conditions.

This is especially pronounced in the Monterey
and Seaside area shown in Figure 1. Many of
the lines on this map operate less than once
an hour, and have very short unique segments.

Because each line has to operate on its own
schedule, overlapping lines don’t result in
high combined frequency.

For example, there may be four direct buses
per hour between Monterey Transit Plaza and
Del Monte Center on weekdays from 7 AM
to 6 PM. However, during that eleven hour
span, there are at least nine 30-minute gaps
between southbound buses.
2 There are two main exceptions: (a) the JAZZ A and B, which each run every 36 minutes on weekdays, and combine to every 18 minutes on Fremont Blvd., and (b) Line 24 from Monterey to Carmel Valley, which operated every 40 minutes on weekdays until September 2021..
3 As of early 2021, 14 of the 32 MST lines currently in operation run eight times per day or less.

A number of MST lines operate just a few
times per day, connecting small numbers of
people to specific buildings or facilities.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 5
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit

3. It can take a very long time to get from A to B, even when those places are nearby.

Transit is useful to people when it extends the range of places they can go. But low frequencies mean that few people can use transit to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. This is true even when travelling relatively short distances, as in the following examples.

Example: How do you get from Seaside to Pacific Grove?
Let’s imagine you are a retail worker living in the center of Seaside, and you need to reach your job at Country Club Gate Center in Pacific Grove (6 miles away) for the start of your shift at noon on weekdays. Here’s what you would need to do:

Notice that this trip includes a total of only 29 minutes actually riding the bus, and that you would spend more time waiting at your destination than you would getting there.

The key problem in this example is the low frequency of Line 2. If Line 2 came every 30 minutes instead of once an hour, this could halve the length of the trip. In that case, you could catch a later Jazz B at 11:15, wait only 10 minutes in Monterey to connect to Line 2 at 11:48, and wait only 6 minutes at the end, for a total of 48 minutes.

Example: How do you get from North Salinas to South Salinas? Let’s imagine you are a hospital worker living near North Salinas High School. You need to reach your job at Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital (4.5 miles away) for the start of your shift at 9 AM on weekdays. Here’s what you would need to do:

Notice that this trip includes a total of only 21 minutes actually riding the bus, and that you would spend more time waiting at Salinas Transit Center than on either bus. A fit adult could walk from Salinas Transit Center starting at 8:10 AM and arrive at the hospital at the same time as someone who had waited for Line 48. They might even be able to walk the whole way from home.

The key problem in this example is both low frequencies and the lack of a timed transfer at Salinas Transit Center. If Lines 48 and 49 were timed to arrive together at Salinas Transit Center at 8:25 AM and leave together at 8:30 AM, you could leave home 15 minutes later. If they both came every half hour and were timed to leave Salinas Transit Center at 8:15 AM and 8:45 AM, you could leave home 30 minutes later, for a 48 minute trip.

These are just two of many possible
examples. Many prominent destinations are
served once an hour or less, and people
traveling to them by transit would have
similar or even longer trips.

JARRETT WALKER
+ ASSOCIATES | 6
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit

4. Where people live and
work has changed.

The last 25 years have seen important shifts
in where people live and work. Since the late
1990s: • The population of the greater Monterey
area and rural areas of the North County
have stagnated.
• Marina experienced a significant decline
in the 2000s, but has had the strongest
growth of any community in Monterey
County in the 2010s and continues to have
the largest number of ongoing residential
development projects.
• Salinas has grown slightly but unevenly. The
population has grown significantly in North
Salinas, while it has tended to decline or
stagnated in East and South Salinas.
• Cities in the Highway 101 corridor south of
Salinas grew strongly in the 2000s, but that
growth slowed down significantly in the
2010s.
• The prominence of the military as a source
of economic development has decreased
following the closure of Fort Ord.
• The agriculture, retail, service, hospital-
ity and higher education sectors have all
become correspondingly more important.

Although some cities on the Monterey
Peninsula are now showing renewed interest
in growth and development, the structure
of existing water rights means that future
growth will likely be concentrated in the
Highway 101 corridor south of Salinas.

Figure 2: Regional map of change in population density. Growth has largely been concentrated in the outer neighborhoods of Salinas and in the cities of Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield and King City.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 7
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Figure 4: Map of MST’s fixed-route network in Salinas, with lines color-coded by frequency. All but two lines (20 and 41) operate once an hour or less.

5. There is unmet demand
for service in Salinas.

Salinas is the largest population and job center
in Monterey County, accounting for 36% of the
population and 30% of jobs. There are good
reasons to think many of the trips that happen
in Salinas could be served by transit.

For one, Salinas is relatively compact and
dense. The entire city of 155,000 people fits
in a 5x5 mile area, and a large share of its
jobs are located either Downtown or on long,
straight main streets. As a result:
• Most bus stops in Salinas are located within
a 1/2-mile of several thousand residents.
• Many of the places people need to go can be
reached in a relatively short trip, that could
be effectively served by frequent transit.

Salinas also has a relatively high poverty rate,
implying that many people are in need of
public services, including transportation. Many
people in Salinas live in large households,
where there are often fewer cars than people
who need to go places.

Despite this, large parts of the city are served
by lines that operate once an hour or less.

With such infrequent service, an able bodied
adult can walk most of the way across Salinas
in the time it takes before the next bus comes.

But very few people have the time to do that.

Figure 3: Table comparing the population and ridership in the Monterey and Salinas areas to the amount of MST weekly scheduled in-service hours.

Population Jobs
% MST Service
(Fall 2020)
% MST Ridership
(Fall 2020)
Monterey Bay and Peninsula
(includes Carmel, Del Monte Forest, Pacific
Grove, Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, Seaside, Marina)
27%
(115,000)
28%
(48,000)
52%
(2,000 hours/week)
45%
(13,000/week)
Salinas
(includes Salinas, Boronda)
36%
(157,000)
30%
(51,000)
35%
(1,350 hours/week)
42%
(12,200/week)

JARRETT WALKER
+ ASSOCIATES | 8
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Figure 5: How
MST ridership
changed from
Fall 2019 to Fall
2020, by area
of Monterey
County.

6. The pandemic has
brought more focus onto
equity issues.

Establishing the way out of pandemic-era plan-
ning is another key reason for this study. During the pandemic, both MST service levels and ridership declined considerably.

Comparing Fall 2019 to Fall 2020: • MST reduced service by over 30%. • Weekday ridership was almost 75% lower, from over 13,500 to less than 3,700 board-
ings per day on fixed routes.
• Weekend ridership was about 60% lower,
and at par with weekdays. On weekends,
boardings went from about 9,000 board-
ings per day to just under 3,500 per day.

The pandemic especially caused much lower
peak-hour demand. Prior to March 2020, MST
experienced significantly higher ridership on
weekdays between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM and
between 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM, and provided
a higher level of service in response.

As schools, offices, and many hospitality busi-
nesses either closed or significantly reduced
their operations, rush hour ridership came
down to midday levels. Figure 6 shows that
MST experienced about the same level of rid-
ership from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, and no longer
provided additional service at peak hours.

In addition, ridership declines were con-
siderably less steep in areas with many
low-income people of color, suggesting that
a large share of pandemic-era transit riders
have been essential workers.

This is consistent with trends in transit ridership observed throughout California and nationwide.

As the pandemic evolves
and recedes, it will remain
important to understand
the needs of the people
whose travel purposes
are so essential that they
continued even in a public
health emergency.

Figure 6: How
MST boardings
(left) and total
bus departures
(right) per hour
on weekdays
changed from
Fall 2019 to Fall
2020.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 9
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
The Challenge of Planning a Good Transit Network in Monterey County

1. Relatively few people
live in dense parts of cities.

Fixed-route transit relies on the ability and
willingness of strangers to share a vehicle. To
make this possible, several people along any
bus line need to be interested in going to
places the bus is going. To achieve high ridership, you must have many people near bus lines going to many destinations.

There are people and jobs throughout
Monterey County. But there are very few
places where many people live in close
proximity, or where many jobs are located
in a small area.

Almost all of those places appear shaded in
color on the map in Figure 7, and all of MST’s
most productive lines (in ridership terms) focus
on these areas:
• JAZZ A/B: Monterey-Seaside-Sand City.
• Line 18: Monterey-Seaside-Marina
• Line 20: Salinas-Marina-Sand
City-Seaside-Monterey
• Line 41: East Salinas-Downtown Salinas
• Line 49: North Salinas-Downtown Salinas
With few exceptions1, these are the areas
where a well-funded, well-designed and welloperated transit system might be expected to generate high ridership, in the absence
of a global pandemic. Taken together, they
account for only half the population and jobs
of Monterey County.
1 Most notably CSUMB, which does not appear in this map but is a large and growing center between Downtown Marina and Seaside.

Figure 7: Map of combined population and job density in the greater Monterey and Salinas areas.

JARRETT WALKER
+ ASSOCIATES | 10
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit

2. There is no one
“Downtown.”
Even in a spread-out community, it may
be possible to generate significant transit
ridership if there are places where almost
everybody needs to go on a regular basis.

We can identify these places on a map, by
counting how many jobs are within walking
distance of any point. Offices, retail, hotels,
restaurants, social services, colleges, hospitals
and many other destinations are all places
where there are jobs and where people need
to go. Places where many such destinations
are within walking distance of each other are
natural hubs for transit service.

The map in Figure 8 shows us that the largest
such centers are in Downtown Monterey and
Downtown Salinas. This is why MST builds
most of its service around the Monterey Transit
Plaza and the Salinas Transit Center.

But the map also shows a major challenge
in generating high ridership even with this
design: neither of the county’s two largest
centers account for a large share of countywide jobs1.

This reflects what anyone who lives in
Monterey County already knows: there’s no
one “Downtown” where someone could go for
nearly everything they might need.

That means that any successful transit
system in Monterey County needs to
connect the centers of Monterey and
Salinas with a wide variety of smaller desti-
nations that also generate many trips, like
colleges, hospitals, smaller town centers
and suburban shopping centers. 1 There were over 170,000 civilian jobs in Monterey County in 2017.

The most central point in Downtown Monterey was within 1.5 miles of 9,900 jobs (6% of county-wide jobs). The most central point in Downtown Salinas was within 1.5 miles of 14,900 jobs (9% of countywide jobs).

Figure 8: Regional map showing the number of jobs within walking distance, defined as 1.5 miles, or a 30 minute walk by an able-bodied adult.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 11
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit

3. A growing number of
people live very far from
the places they need to go.

The places that are growing the fastest are the
places that are the farthest from significant
concentrations of jobs: Marina, and the cities
of Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield and King
City.

Even in a future with fast bus service and more
rail, when so many people live so far away
from the places they need to go, someone
has to pay the price of distance. Distance
must be crossed, which takes time and money
that can’t be spent towards other things
people value. This means:
• More people bear the cost of owning and
maintaining more cars, to access opportunities that might be accessible by transit if they lived closer in.
• Those who can’t drive or get a ride from a
friend spend hours on transit, and hours
waiting, to cover that distance.
• To serve these often disadvantaged communities more equitably, MST needs to spend more of its budget on distance,
which means less can be spent on high
frequencies or long hours of service, undermining ridership potential. • A long cascade of social, health, economic
and environmental problems follow.

This network redesign examines ways that
transit access can be increased despite
the high cost of distance. But unless future
housing development can be redirected closer
to where most people work, shop, and access
services, the problems caused by distance will
grow worse, and transit alone will not be the
savior.

Figure 9: Regional map showing the number of people living in locations that are near many jobs (in blue) vs. in locations that are near very few jobs (in red).

The fastest growing
places are far from
jobs and services.

Unless future housing
can be directed
closer to where
people need to go,
the problems caused
by distance will
grow worse. More
MST service to farflung places can only
mitigate this issue,
not solve it.
| 12 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Key Choices in Redesigning the
2 Network
JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 13
2 K
ey Choices in R
e
designing the Network
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Ridership vs. Coverage
Figure 10: Comparing an imaginary town where transit is run with the goal of maximizing frequency and ridership (left) vs. the same town where transit is run with the goal of providing a little service near everyone (right). The maximum ridership (left) network has very frequent service, but only on the roads where the most people live and work. The maximum coverage network has service on every road, but it doesn’t come very often.

The MST COA is a unique opportunity to rethink the purpose of Monterey County’s transit system. The most basic choice is the degree to which the transit system should be pursuing ridership or coverage.

What is planning for High Ridership?
Designing a network for high ridership serves several popular goals, including:
• Enabling people to use transit to easily get to many jobs and services. • Minimizing pollution and climate impact by replacing car trips with transit trips. • Limiting the growth of congestion.
• Supporting dense and walkable development.

Prioritizing ridership means buses come more often and are convenient for more trips (higher frequency, longer hours) but are available only in places where many people, jobs and destinations are located.

What is planning for High Coverage?
Designing a transit system for high coverage serves different popular goals:
• Ensuring that as many people as possible have insurance against isolation through access to some transit service, no matter where they live. • Ensuring that every community in the county has some service, even if relatively few people live and work there.

Prioritizing coverage means buses serve as many places as possible, but because they are spread out they don’t come often (once an hour or less) and aren’t convenient for many trips.

Why can’t MST do both?
MST can pursue high ridership and extensive coverage at the same time, but the more it pursues one, the less it can provide of the other. Every dollar that is spent providing high frequency along a dense corridor is a dollar that cannot be spent bringing transit closer to each person’s home.

At the moment, about 40% of MST fixed-route service is targeted to maximizing ridership, while the remaining 60% is oriented toward coverage.

Should MST focus more on the services likely to generate the highest ridership, or continue to focus on covering as many places as possible?
JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 14
2 K
ey Choices in R
e
designing the Network
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Local vs. Regional Service
Because MST is the transit agency for all
of Monterey County, there will always be a
tension in deciding how much transit service
should be provided for:
• Local trips, mostly in the greater Monterey
and Salinas areas.
• Regional trips connecting all parts of the
county to Salinas, Monterey, Watsonville
and points beyond.

This tension is inevitably bound up in the ridership vs. coverage trade-off, because:
• Longer lines cost more to operate at the
same frequency than shorter lines.
• Longer lines cross large areas where no one
gets on the bus, so they serve fewer riders
for every hour the bus runs.

This means that regional bus service tends to
be more expensive to operate than local lines,
while serving fewer passengers.

This is especially true for MST’s longest lines,
like Line 23 (Salinas to King City); Line 84 (King
City to Paso Robles); or the pre-pandemic lines
to San Jose and Santa Cruz.

The more MST spends on regional service,
the fewer resources are available to
provide lower-cost, higher-ridership lines in
urbanized areas. But if MST did not provide
regional lines to the small towns in southern and northern Monterey County, it is unlikely anyone else would step in.

Figure 11: Regional map of combined population and job density.

How much of MST’s service should be oriented toward
the greater Salinas urban area vs. the greater SeasideMonterey urban area vs. regional service? JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 15
2 K
ey Choices in R
e
designing the Network
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Equality vs. Equity
Should MST focus mostly on the travel needs of
disadvantaged communities, or consider all travel
demand equally regardless of people’s circumstances?
Figure 12: Regional map of the density of people living in households below 150% of the federal poverty line.

Almost everybody needs to go places on a
regular basis. But some people have fewer
choices than others about how to get around.
• People who don’t own cars can’t drive
their car to get around. But this does
not always mean they need transit. Many
people without cars choose to live in a
location where they can walk or bike to
the places they need to go. They may use
transit only occasionally, and even then
they may have other options like a taxi or
ridehailing service like Uber and Lyft.
• Some seniors and people with disabilities
can’t drive, and so they are more likely to
need public transit to get around. Many of
the people who fit this description will also
have difficulty using transit and may require
ADA complementary paratransit (MST
RIDES).
• People with low incomes generally have
fewer choices about where to live, and
whether or not that place is near the places
they need to go. They are less likely to
own a reliable car, and more likely to live in
a household with fewer cars than drivers.

These factors make it more likely that a lowincome person might need to use transit.

But if transit isn’t available or convenient
enough, they are more likely to rely on
friends and family to give them rides, or to
walk or bike very long distances.

In 2014, Monterey County voters decided to
support the transit needs of seniors, veterans
and people with disabilities by paying for extra
transit service. Measure Q collects an 1/8-cent
sales tax that goes to funding six fixed bus
lines and all of the county’s paratransit trips.

But there has been no explicit funding commitment (by voters or otherwise) to prioritize needs of people with low incomes, who tend
to have the fewest choices about where they
need to go and how to get there.

MST does not currently have the funding
tools to make a commitment comparable to
Measure Q. But MST could decide to prioritize
low-income communities in planning its general-public services, particularly for the portion of services dedicated to coverage.

Would that be the right decision? It depends
on your values.

If you are most interested in universal coverage
with basic transit service, you might not want
to see service to some communities prioritized
over others.

If you are most interested in a system that
maximizes ridership, you might not want to
prioritize service to far-flung and isolated lowincome areas.

Public outreach suggests that such “purist”
views about the ridership vs. coverage tradeoff are rare. Local opinion somewhat favors a stronger focus on ridership, but overwhelmingly favors prioritizing the needs of disadvantaged people and communities in
designing transit service.
| 16 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
3 How Public Input Shaped This Plan
JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 17
3 How Public Inp
u
t Shaped This Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Phase 1: Understanding the Community’s Values and Priorities Initial Outreach Process
In the first half of 2021, MST and the consultant
team conducted outreach to hear the community’s opinion on the key choices for the transit network. A more complete description of this
process is available in the Choices Report and
its appendices. Broadly speaking, we heard
from:
• Stakeholder groups. Small group interviews were conducted with over 80 community groups to secure their input
regarding transit needs and priorities.
• Regular MST riders. Nine focus groups
were conducted with English and Spanishspeaking MST riders to explore their experiences with and priorities for the transit
network.
• Members of the general public. A statistically representative survey of 500 households throughout Monterey County
was conducted via telephone, to assess
how the general population believes MST
should allocate services and resources.

The community values
transit for ethical and
practical purposes.

When members of the public were asked
to rate how important it would be for MST
to focus on any of twelve aspects of service
design, a majority considered all of them to be
either “extremely” or “very” important. Very
few consider any of them unimportant.

Simply put, people value public transit, and differences of opinion are matters of degree. Also, they are decisive: almost everyone expressed
an opinion. Very few answered “Not sure.”
The service design aspects that the greatest percentages of respondents rated as “extremely important” are of two types:
• Empathetic. Ethically, people feel it
is important to serve those in need
because of age, disability, or lack of a
personal vehicle. These factors were rated
as “extremely important” by the largest
numbers of respondents.

Figure 13: How
Monterey
County
residents rated
the importance
of different
possible
priorities for
MST transit
service in a
phone survey.
12%
14%
14%
15%
18%
23%
25%
25%
26%
26%
34%
41%
45%
40%
46%
49%
48%
49%
58%
53%
57%
50%
56%
52%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Special tourist services to reduce traffic congestion
Service to all places, even where few people ride
Support denser, walkable development
Increase overall amount of service
Help reduce the growth of traffic congestion
Transportation to high schools
Transportation to colleges & universities
Routes for people to get to stores and appts
Routes that get workers to places where the most jobs are Help limit air pollution and greenhouse gases
Affordable transportation where many people lack vehicles Routes tailored to needs of elderly and disabled
How important is it for MST to provide....

Extremely important Very important Somewhat important
Not very important Not important at all Not sure
• Instrumental. As a practical matter, service
is important to the extent it is useful.

Specifically, this includes getting people
to jobs, school, and shopping, as well as
reducing pollution/greenhouse gases.

Factors least highly valued are special services for tourists and service to all corners of Monterey County, including places where few
people would use it.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 18
3 How Public Inp
u
t Shaped This Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Frequency is more valued
than coverage. Serving
those who need it matters
most.

Broadly speaking, people in Monterey
County appear willing to invest more in
high-frequency services, but only if the
remaining coverage resources are invested
on meeting the needs of high-need groups.

Stakeholder Interviews
Most interviewed stakeholders expressed a
desire for more frequent transit, for reasons
such as:
• “Service workers often have multiple jobs
and need more frequency to make transit a
viable option.”
• “Lack of frequency is a barrier to use.

People would rather get a ride because
transit takes too long.”
• “Frequent transit would open up opportunities for affordable housing grants.” However, other stakeholders noted that
enhanced convenience for some should not
outweigh access for those who lack transportation options.

Rider Focus Groups
Among riders, there was broad belief that
if lines ran more often, more people would
ride and that current riders would ride more
often: “People want to ride the bus, if it’s good
enough.”
When asked if they would trade reduced
coverage for increased frequency, many riders
had difficulty choosing frequency unconditionally and offered “hybrid” solutions to avoid the choice.
• “Frequency on a few well-planned routes
would be better, but please focus on
people who really need the service.”
• “Increase frequency but offer special
services for seniors and persons with
disabilities.”
• “Frequency, but not if it is inequitable.”
Survey Respondents
These views are mirrored in what we
heard from the general public. When asked
directly about the key trade-offs, phone survey
respondents:
• Favored frequent, high-ridership service
(64%) over extensive coverage (35%).
• Favored focusing first on disadvantaged
communities (69%) over treating all communities equally (30%).

The strength of feeling in favor of service for
those who need it most was even more evident
in questions about which types of service MST
should prioritize: over 90% of respondents
thought that “routes tailored to the need
of the elderly and disabled” and “affordable transportation where many people lack vehicles” were either “extremely” or
“very” important. Figure 14: How Monterey County residents responded to key trade-offs in a phone survey.

Telephone Survey Tradeoffs: Should MST…
Focus on providing service to as many places as
possible, even if that means the bus only comes
every hour or two and most trips take a very long
time?
OR
Focus on providing fast and frequent service, that
comes every 15 minutes and takes the most direct
routes, even if that means transit is only available in the areas where the most people live and work?
Focus on service every 15 minutes in areas with lots
of jobs and schools, so that many people can rely on
buses to get to work or school on time, but that
means some people don't have any service?
OR
Provide service every hour or two throughout the
county, so everyone has a little bus service but very
few people can rely on it to get to work or school on
time?
Focus more on the benefits of fairness to all by
providing at least a little service to everyone in all
communities large and small, even if it is slow and
the bus doesn’t come very often?
OR
Focus more on supporting the local economy by
providing fast and frequent service in the areas
where many people could use it to get to work,
school, shopping and other everyday needs?
Focus first on needs of communities where many
people have low incomes, or don’t have reliable
access to a personal vehicle?
OR
Provide service equally to all communities,
regardless of need, income or access to a personal
vehicle?
69%
30%
35%
64%
65%
27%
72%
33%
JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 19
3 How Public Inp
u
t Shaped This Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Phase 2: Input Received on the Draft Plan
Draft Plan Development
The values and priorities expressed by the
public in Phase 1, along with a technical
assessment of the state of MST’s network and
services, were summarized in the Choices
Report, released in May 2021.

Based on the assessment presented in that
report, the MST Board of Directors Operations
Performance Committee directed the project
team in June to develop a network plan that
would:
• Focus a little more on ridership and frequency, and a little less on coverage to as many places as possible.
• Prioritize the travel needs of people in lowincome communities. • Shift more service to Salinas and regional
needs.

The project team, in collaboration with representatives from local governments, developed a Draft Plan that was released for public
comment in early September.

Outreach Process
Over the course of September and October,
the team gathered feedback on the Draft Plan
by reaching back out to stakeholders, regular
riders and members of the public through:
• Virtual public meetings held in English and
Spanish, and available on YouTube.
• Three focus group meetings with MST
riders contacted in Phase 1, including two
in English (Peninsula, Salinas and South
County) and one in Spanish (countywide).
• Four stakeholder group meetings, where we
heard from representatives of 30 business,
non-profit and government organizations
located throughout Monterey County.
• An online community survey on the
Draft Plan that received 190 responses.

The survey was provided in English and
Spanish, and was promoted on MST’s
website and social media, through e-mails
to stakeholder groups, and with advertisements at transit centers and on the bus.

Key Comments and
Concerns
The following are recurring comments received
from multiple sources over the course of Phase
2 outreach. A report on all comments received
in meetings is in Appendix A to this report.

Positive comments about increased
frequency, timed transfers, and
shorter travel times.

These elements of the Draft Plan were highly
regarded by stakeholders and riders, if accompanied by reduction or elimination of transfer fares. We heard comments such as “Timed
transfers are an excellent idea,” “The reductions
in travel time will be a huge help for Hartnell
students, particularly [...] from South County”,
and “Increased frequencies will help workers.”
Positive comments about new routes
in Salinas.

The proposed routes to Salinas Adult School,
Natividad Hospital and South Salinas were very
popular in meetings and the survey.

Requests to continue serving Social
Service Agencies near Salinas Airport.

This was the strongest concern about the Draft
Plan in meetings, and the second most frequent concern in the online survey. Route 48 previously served several County social service
departments, including the MCDSS One Stop
Center near Salinas Airport. The Draft Plan
route would require riders to walk ½ mile or
more to reach these facilities.

Desire for restoration of long-distance
services, especially to San Jose.

Restoring service to San Jose was raised in
several meetings, and was the most common
request in the online survey. While advocates
acknowledged that most ridership is very
occasional, they saw it as important to provide
CSUMB students with a link to the Bay Area,
provide access to San Jose airport, connect
to VTA and Caltrain, provide access to higher
paying jobs, and serve regional medical trips.

Other requests for long-distance service
included continuing existing service to Big Sur,
and restoring pre-COVID service to Santa Cruz.

Desire for later service in the evening.

Survey respondents in several areas requested
later service, including in Salinas, Carmel,
Pacific Grove and North County.

Some concern about lack of direct
route from CSUMB to Monterey.

Staff and students at CSUMB expressed some
concern about the lack of a direct route from
CSUMB to downtown Monterey. While they
understood the timed transfer being proposed, they wondered if it would be reliable.

Concerns about safety and sanitation
at transit centers.

The expectation of more transfers heightens
the importance of security and sanitation at
the transfer centers. Concerns about this were
raised in both phases of outreach.

Many questions about how changes
will be communicated.

Stakeholders and riders asked how the Final
Plan would be communicated by MST. Many
stakeholders were eager to help educate their
constituents about revised services, but wondered what tools they would have to work with.

CSUMB students and staff were concerned
about how to make the system “less confusing” for students and how to educate them about MST earlier in their time at CSUMB.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 20
3 How Public Inp
u
t Shaped This Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit

2. Restore the route to
Social Services in Salinas
In response to strong feedback from the public
and County Social Services employees, the
project team proposes restoring the former
Line 48 as new Line 96, to allow for continued
service to County services at Schilling Place
and La Guardia Drive. This is made possible
with two changes, compared to the Draft Plan.

Fund new Line 96 with Measure Q
resources, replacing old Line 48.

Many of the users with the highest need for
the services on this route are seniors, people
with disabilities and veterans, so it is appropriate to fund this service with Measure Q funds.

However, in an effort to make judicious use of
Measure Q, the new Line 96 would operate
on weekdays only, at the hours when County
social services and most medical services on
Abbott Street are open.

For now, maintain existing Line 47 as
the shuttle between the Hartnell main
campus and Hartnell-Alisal.

In the Draft Plan, Hartnell-Alisal would have
been connected to transit with a redesigned
Line 48. In the absence of this change, the
most practical way to continue service to this
location is to maintain the existing Line 47
service between the two Hartnell campuses.

However, Line 47 is included in the Medium
Scenario and not the Low Scenario of the
Final Plan. This is to indicate that depending
on future resource constraints, MST may
not be able to justify continued operation
of this route using general funds. Line 47
serves a very specific campus-to-campus need
and is duplicative over much of its path with
the more frequent Line 41.

The project team presented the Draft Plan
and public comments to the Operations
Performance Committee. Based on discussion
with the committee, the following actions were
taken.

1. Maintain the Draft Plan’s
improvements to service
The generally positive reception for the plan
motivated the project team to maintain its key
and most popular elements.

Keep the increased frequencies in
general, timed transfers and added
service in Salinas.

These elements are key to all of the positive
outcomes generated by the plan, and will
make MST service useful to more people on a
day-to-day basis. However, the ability to maintain these elements while remaining within MST’s expected financial resources, means that
MST would not be able to respond to some
requests.

No restored long-distance services
(e.g. San Jose).

Within the resources available in the Medium
Scenario, restoring long-distance routes would
require reducing proposed service somewhere
else, most likely in Salinas or South County.

Based on the popularity of new routes and
higher frequency in Salinas and South County,
the project team judged that it would be preferable to maintain these improvements rather than to restore former long-distance routes.

However, as in the Draft Plan, the High
Scenario includes a proposed route to Gilroy,
connecting to VTA and Caltrain services to the
Bay Area.

No change in service hours.

The Final Plan would generally maintain the
hours proposed for service in the Draft Plan.

Although MST understands the need for more
late evening service, current resource constraints mean that improving evening service would have to come at the cost of reducing
service levels in the daytime.

Public input received during Phase 1 suggested that this would not be acceptable to most community members. Planning the High
Scenario also showed that even with increased
funds, it is difficult to justify increases in
evening service while providing adequate
frequencies for daytime needs.

Keep service from CSUMB to
Downtown Monterey more frequent,
even if it requires a transfer.

Within the resources available in the Medium
Scenario, direct service from CSUMB to
Downtown Monterey would only operate every
60 minutes, instead of every 30. Given the
popularity of increased frequencies, the team
preferred to maintain higher frequency, and to
minimize wait time at the first and last bus stop.

However, the issue of transfer reliability shows
the importance of correctly scheduling Routes
17, 18 and 20. The project team re-checked
that anticipated runtimes would make the
timed transfer at Sand City possible. This
will required continued attention throughout
the implementation phase and once the new
network is up and running.

In the High Scenario, Route 20 would operate
every 15 minutes, and would connect with a
shuttle service every 15 minutes to CSUMB
from a stop in Marina. These higher frequencies (which rely on additional resources not currently available) would make transfers convenient even if they are not perfectly timed.

How Comments on the Draft Plan Were Incorporated in the Final Plan | 21 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
4 Key Elements of the Plan
JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 22
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Policy Direction
Equality vs. Equity
Direction: Prioritize the travel needs
of people in low-income communities.

MST’s existing coverage-oriented service
consists of routes operating once an hour or
less in a mix of suburban, small town and rural
areas at all income levels.

The policy direction is to more specifically
orient coverage service to meet the needs of
low-income communities.

In practice, this means:
• Ensuring coverage is maintained in lowincome areas, even though the overall share of coverage-related service will
decline. The corollary to this is reducing or
eliminating coverage in some affluent but
very isolated or low-density areas.
• Maintaining coverage to key public and
community services used by low-income
people, even if those are located in areas
that are otherwise affluent.
• Eliminating symbolic coverage to far-flung
areas where the bus can only ever serve
extremely small numbers of people.

Local vs. Regional
Direction: Shift more service to
Salinas and to regional needs.

MST’s existing balance of service provides
about:
• 50% of service in the greater SeasideMonterey urban area. • 35% in the greater Salinas area.
• 15% in the rest of the county.

The policy direction is to rebalance service
to provide about:
• 40% of service in the greater SeasideMonterey urban area • 40% in the greater Salinas area
• 20% in the rest of the county
This balance is closer to the share of regional
population and jobs, while acknowledging that
an MST bus line is not the best tool to serve
most isolated rural areas, or most agricultural
jobs.

Increased service in Salinas would largely
be reflected in higher frequencies, while the
increase in regional service would enable
service increases in the Highway 101 corridor
between Salinas and King City.

Ridership vs. Coverage
Direction: Focus a little more on
Ridership, and a little less on Coverage.

MST’s current balance of service tilts slightly
toward coverage. We estimate that about 40%
of existing service is ridership-oriented, while
60% is coverage-oriented.

The policy direction is to move MST’s future
service more toward ridership, and less toward
coverage. Accordingly, this plan would orient
about 60% of service toward ridership, and
40% toward coverage.

In practice, this means:
• Increasing the number of lines that
provide service every 30 minutes or
better, including in some locations every
15 minutes or better.
• Reducing the number of deviations that
MST’s bus lines make along the way. This
allows service to be as direct as possible to
every destination along the route, but will
require some passengers to walk a little bit
further to and from their bus stops.
• Eliminating some of MST’s very infrequent lines, especially if they operate in areas with very low population and jobs
nearby.

Despite the reduced share of coverageoriented service, this plan would provide MST bus service within a half-mile of more people
than the existing network. That is largely a
result of the ways in which coverage service
would be redistributed.

After reviewing the tradeoffs involved and the
input received from the
public, the MST Board
of Directors’ Operations
Performance Committee
has provided the following
direction.

These principles were
the basis for proposed
changes to the MST bus
network in the Draft
Network Plan, and have
been maintained in the
Final Plan.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 23
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Resource Level Annual MST
Service Hours**
Change from
existing
(FY21)
Change from
pre-pandemic
(FY19)***
Low Scenario
Assumes either general fund sources recover very slowly from the pandemic, or insufficient workforce available to operate at full capacity, or both. 163,000 - 3.7% -10.4%
Medium Scenario - Most Likely
Matches MST's budget and workforce targets for FY 2022-2023. 176,000 + 4.0% -3.3% High Scenario
Assumes voters pass a new sales tax including 1/8-cent for service increases, or another similarly-sized new source of funding appears.
228,000 + 34.7% +25.3%
MST COA - Three Funding Scenarios
General Fund Service Only*
* Includes service funded by local taxpayers through the California Local Transportation Fund (LTF), and other state and federal funding sources. Measure Q services are additional and would continue at similar levels.

Services paid for by institutions (e.g. Monterey Trolley, on-campus routes at CSUMB, routes to military bases) are additional and not included in this network study. ** Service hours MST's budget could support if MST directly operated all of its bus lines. MST tends to directly operate routes that require full-sized buses. Routes with smaller buses are often operated by a private contractor at a lower cost. Actual designed levels of service in each scenario are about 10% higher as a result, matching MST's current practice of assigning ~25% of service to the contractor. *** In addition to the losses in general fund service, about 25% of MST's service prior to 2020 was paid for by the military. Military funding for service is not currently expected to return.

Timeline and Funding Scenarios
Timeline: Fall 2022
Following on the release of the Draft Plan,
Phase 2 of public input, and the incorporation
of feedback into the plan, this project team is
proposing this Final Plan for adoption by MST’s
Board of Directors in February 2022.

Because this plan would propose substantial
changes in service, MST expects it will take
several months before it is fully implemented.

The current operator shortage in particular
poses a barrier to swift implementation of the
Medium Scenario. At this time, the expectation is that the redesigned network will be fully operational by late 2022.

Funding Scenarios
As a result, this plan assumes that the redesigned network is most likely to operate with MST’s resources for Fiscal Year 20231,
also called the Medium Scenario. Because
future circumstances remain uncertain, this
plan also includes contingencies for what to do
with different resource levels:
• The Low Scenario is a contingency to
define what might need to be cut if either
(a) MST’s funding sources recover more
slowly than expected from the pandemic,
or (b) MST is not able to hire and retain
enough drivers to operate at full capacity2.
• The High Scenario is for future growth.

Funding for this growth could come from
a new sales tax similar to Measure Q, or
another funding source coming out of new
state or federal programs.
1 MST plans its budget according to fiscal years that start on July 1.

FY 2023 starts on July 1, 2022 and ends on June 30, 2023. 2 Transit agencies nationwide, including MST, have suffered from driver hiring and retention issues since pre-pandemic times.

Figure 15: Table detailing expected resources available for bus lines operated with MST general funds in the Low, Medium and High funding scenarios.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 24
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Existing vs. Future Network Maps – Existing
Figure 16: The existing regional transit network with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The maps on this page represent MST’s existing bus lines. On these maps, each line’s color represents how often the bus operates on
weekdays.

The vast majority (~85%) of MST’s fixed-route
service is operated in the greater SeasideMonterey and Salinas area (Figure 17). The remaining ~15% includes MST’s regional lines
(Figure 16).

Three lines stand out for their frequency. These
are the only services that usually run every 35
minutes or better.
o Line 41, connecting East Salinas to
Downtown Salinas and Northridge.
o The JAZZ A and JAZZ B, between
Monterey and Seaside.
o Line 20 from Salinas to Monterey.

All of MST’s other lines operate once an hour
or less. These tend to have long and circuitous
routings, with many deviations, intended to
maximize the area covered by bus service.

On some lines, the bus follows a different
route at different times of day. Not shown on
these maps is the tendency for each line to
have a specific timetable, with different starting and ending hours.

Figure 17: The existing transit network in the Monterey-Salinas area, with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

Reading the Maps
Throughout this report, maps show bus
lines color-coded by midday frequency
on weekdays.
• Red lines run about every 15 minutes.
• Blue lines run about every 30 minutes.
• Green lines run about once an hour.
• Gold lines run less than once an hour.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 25
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Existing vs. Future Network Maps – Medium Scenario
Figure 18: The Medium Scenario regional transit network with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The maps on this page reflect the level of
service MST expects to operate in 2022 and
2023. In this scenario:
• Half of MST’s bus lines would run every
15 to 30 minutes. In addition to Lines 20,
41 and the JAZZ, this would include most
of the lines operating in Salinas, and service
every 30 minutes to Carmel-by-the-Sea,
Downtown Pacific Grove, and CSUMB.
• This is in part because most of the infrequent bus lines in the Peninsula would be grouped into fewer straighter lines.
• Increased regional service would mostly be
allocated to service every hour on Line 23
from Salinas to King City. MST would also
replace general public on-call service with
local circulators running every 30 minutes in
Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield and King City.
• Hours of service would be consistent
across the system. Main routes would
operate from 6 AM to 10 PM (9 PM on
weekends), and most smaller routes from 7
AM to 7 PM, as shown on page 28.
• Timed transfers would facilitate easy,
consistent connections between routes
that run every 30 to 60 minutes at key locations, as shown on page 29.

Figure 19: The Medium Scenario transit network in the Monterey-Salinas area, with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The Medium Scenario is
the most likely scenario.

It is in effect “the plan,”
barring unforeseen
circumstances.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 26
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Existing vs. Future Network Maps – Low Scenario
Figure 20: The Low Scenario regional transit network with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The Low Scenario is a
contingency plan in case
MST revenues or bus driver
availability were lower than
expected.

Figure 21: The Low Scenario transit network in the Monterey-Salinas area, with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The maps on this page reflect the level of
service MST would operate if the agency
needed to implement the Final Plan with an
8% reduction in service compared to current
expectations. In this scenario:
• In the greater Seaside-Monterey area,
service would be similar to the Medium
Scenario, but more frequent lines would
end service an hour earlier in the evening.
• Service in Salinas would be a mix of routes
operating every 15, 30, and 60 minutes.

This would only be marginally more frequent than it is today. • There would be fewer gains and some
losses to regional service. There would be
no service to the Carmel Valley, and Line
23 would operate every 90 minutes on
average during weekdays.
• Timed transfers would facilitate connections
between routes that operate every 30 to
60 minutes at Monterey Transit Plaza, Sand
City Station and Salinas Transit Center.

The decision to implement the Low Scenario
rather than the Medium Scenario may depend
largely on the timing of new operator hiring.

MST may need to make a
JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 27
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Existing vs. Future Network Maps – High Scenario
Figure 22: The High Scenario regional transit network with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The High Scenario
represents what MST
could do if voters passed
an 1/8-cent sales tax for
increased general service.

Figure 23: The High Scenario transit network in the Monterey-Salinas area, with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The maps on this page reflect what MST could
provide if it received substantial new funding,
equivalent in scale to another 1/8-cent sales tax
for increased service. In this scenario:
• Most of Salinas and much of the greater
Seaside-Monterey area would have bus
lines operating every 15 minutes or
better. This would include Line 41 (AlisalNorthridge), Line 49 (North Main), and Line 47 (South Main/Romie Ln.) in Salinas; Line 20
connecting Monterey, Seaside, Marina, and
Salinas; the shared segments of the JAZZ A
and B lines between Monterey and Seaside;
and Line 15, a new shuttle between CSUMB
and Line 20.
• Regional service would remain as in the
Medium Scenario, but with the addition of
a new route to Gilroy, connecting to the
Bay area via Caltrain and Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
bus lines.
• Timed transfers would remain as in the
Medium Scenario for routes operating every
30 to 60 minutes. But the importance of timed
transfers would decline, since more trips could
rely on frequent connections between routes
operating every 15 minutes or better.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 28
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
15 30 60 ●
5 AM
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PM
5 AM
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PM
Jazz A/B Aquarium-Sand City 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Jazz A Sand City via Hilby 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Jazz B Sand City via Broadway 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Two-way loop past Downtown PG 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2 Monterey - Carmel 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 7 Ryan Ranch-Monterey 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 8 Monterey-CHOMP 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Longline to CHOMP, Carmel, Del Mesa ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 17/18 Sand City-Marina 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 17 Sand City-Marina via CSUMB 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 18 Sand City-Marina via Monterey Rd 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 20 Monterey-Salinas 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 23 Salinas-King City 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 24 Carmel Valley 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 25X Salinas-CSUMB (in-session only) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 28 Watsonville - Castroville - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 29 Watsonville - Prunedale - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 31 Gonzales Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 32 Soledad Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 33 Greenfield Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 34 King City Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 41 Salinas-Alisal 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Northridge 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 43 Salinas TC - Romie Lane 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 44 Salinas TC - Boronda 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 45 Salinas TC - Sanborn Road 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 46 Salinas TC - Natividad 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 47 Salinas TC - Hartnell East Alisal 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 49 Salinas TC - North Main 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Bolsa Knolls 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 61 Veteran's Shuttle ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 84 King City-Paso Robles ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 94 Sand City-Carmel ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
95 Williams Ranch-Northridge ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 96 Airport Business Center 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Limited (8 trips
or less per day)
Proposed MST Bus Line Frequencies - Medium Scenario
The bus comes about every:

WEEKDAYS WEEKEND
15 minutes
or better
30 minutes 60 minutes
Higher frequencies and more consistent hours.

To make service more convenient and legible, this
plan would organize almost all MST bus lines into
three categories based on their weekday midday
frequency:
• Lines that run every 15 minutes.
• Lines that run every 30 minutes.
• Lines that run every 60 minutes.

The most frequent lines would operate every 15
minutes from 7 AM to 6 PM on weekdays. Service
on these frequent lines would continue every 30
minutes or better after 6 PM and on weekends.

In the Low and Medium Scenarios, these would include:
• Line 41 (Salinas-Alisal)
• Line 49 (Salinas-North Main)
• Shared segments of the Jazz A and B (Aquarium
- Seaside)
In the High Scenario, this would also include Line 15
(SURF-CSUMB Shuttle), Line 20 (Monterey-Salinas),
and Line 47 (Salinas-Romie Lane).

Most urban lines would operate every 30 minutes
or better from 7 AM to 6 PM on weekdays. Service
on these lines would continue every 60 minutes or
better after 6 PM and on weekends.

This includes routes connecting to major destinations
including Natividad Hospital, CSUMB, downtown
Pacific Grove, and downtown Carmel-by-the-Sea.

In the Low Scenario, frequent and main lines would
end service an hour earlier, at 9 PM on weekdays and
8 PM on weekends.

Most other lines (including most regional lines)
would operate every 60 minutes or better, from 7
AM to 7 PM, seven days a week. Note that Line 23
(Salinas-King City) would have slightly longer hours,
and that Lines 28 and 29 would each run every 120
minutes, but combine to service every 60 minutes
between Salinas and Watsonville.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 29
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Timed transfers for faster local and regional travel.

Existing Service
The existing MST network features several
transfer points, where passengers can connect
between several incoming bus lines. But
because most lines operate on unique frequencies, have different lengths, and operate from different start and end points, there are
very few timed transfers. This means customers end up waiting a long time.

Furthermore, MST customers are discouraged
from transferring by the requirement to pay a
new full fare every time they change buses.

Proposed Final Network
Figure 24 shows how this would change under
the Medium Scenario of this plan.

Nearly every MST bus line in the proposed
network would either:
• Run every 15 minutes or better, meaning it
is always relatively easy to connect to this
line, since the next bus is always coming
soon (on average, in 7.5 minutes).
• Arrive at Monterey Transit Plaza or Salinas
Transit Center at :10 and :40 after the hour,
if it runs every 30 minutes.
• Arrive at Monterey Transit Plaza or Salinas
Transit Center at :10 after the hour, if it runs
every 60 minutes.

Buses would then leave Monterey Transit Plaza
and Salinas Transit Center at :15 and :45 after
the hour, ensuring a maximum 5 minute wait
to connect between most routes. Additional
timed transfers would also be available at Sand
City Station (to CSUMB) and Carmel Rancho
(to Carmel Valley).

Figure 24: Diagram of the timed transfer system in the Medium Scenario.

Important note: under MST’s current fare structure, each transfer requires passengers to pay a second fare. This plan assumes MST will change fares so transfers are either free or significantly discounted.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 30
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Service that is more direct, and less specialized.

Existing Service
Figure 25 (below left) shows MST’s existing service in the core of the Seaside-Monterey urban area.

Many of the bus lines shown on this map overlap for long segments, deviating here and there to get service closer to a particular street or building. The light green and gold colors of these lines indicate almost all the routes shown here operate once an hour or less. As a result, many locations are accessible by more than one line, but at totally random frequencies that vary widely throughout the day.

For example, Del Monte Center is served by nine bus lines, each one of which has a slightly different path than the others to Monterey Transit Plaza and Carmel-by-the-Sea. But despite these many routes, a passenger can only rely on a trip to central Monterey or Carmel about every 30 minutes, and that trip could take one of several different routes along the way.

Figure 25: Existing MST bus lines in the core of the Seaside-Monterey area. Figure 26: Proposed MST bus lines in the core of the Seaside-Monterey area in the Medium Scenario.

Proposed Final Plan
Figure 26 (below right) shows how service would change under the Medium Scenario. Even though the plan would include fewer routes and slightly less service overall in the Seaside-Monterey area, many places would have more frequent service.

This is because consolidating service into fewer lines makes it possible to run a regular schedule between major destinations, so a passenger can know that the next bus is always scheduled in the same amount of time, and will take the route they used last time.

In this example, Del Monte Center would only be near three bus lines, but a passenger could still count on service to central Monterey or Carmel-by-the-Sea every 30 minutes. Furthermore, that passenger would always use the same bus line, along the most direct path from Carmel to Monterey. | 31 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 32
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Salinas – Existing Service
Line 41 is the only
local route with service
running consistently every
15 to 30 minutes. It operates between Downtown,
Alisal and Northridge, connecting Salinas’ densest
neighborhoods to its largest
destinations.

As a result, Line 41 is useful
for many trips and generates
relatively high ridership.

There are three bus lines on North Main Street,
but the bus usually comes only once an hour (on
Line 49). When Line 29 is in operation, there is a
second bus every other hour. Line 95 only runs four
times a day, and only in the southbound direction.

Most bus lines operate
once an hour or less.

Services like Line 44 and
Line 45 cover many outlying neighborhoods, but
the bus only comes every
75 minutes, which makes
them very difficult to use.

For an able-bodied person,
it’s often faster to walk than
wait for the next bus.

South Main Street and Romie Lane are served
just a few times a day by Measure Q routes primarily targeted for the needs of seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities (Lines 61 and 95).

That leaves many jobs, residents and important destinations a long walk from consistently usable service.

Line 48 is the only all-day local
service in South Salinas. Its routing
is designed to provide access to
social service agencies that have
been placed in isolated locations at
the edge of industrial areas, the 101
freeway, and Salinas Airport.

Salinas is connected to the
rest of the region by Lines 20
(Monterey), 23 (King City), 28
and 29 (Watsonville), and 61
(Marina-VA Clinic)
Reading the Maps
The maps on this and the following page
depict how MST bus lines are currently
organized in Salinas, and how that would
change if this plan were implemented.

These maps are annotated with comments
that explain how the existing network
operates, and how that would change in
the future.

As in the rest of this report, maps show
bus lines color-coded by midday frequency on weekdays. • Red lines run about every 15 minutes.
• Blue lines run about every 30 minutes.
• Green lines run about once an hour.
• Gold lines run less than once an hour.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 33
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Salinas – Medium Scenario
Line 41 would remain
mostly similar to existing
service. It would operate
every 15 minutes a few more
hours on weekdays (7 AM to
6 PM), and every 30 minutes
on weekends.

Line 49 would be upgraded to provide service every 15 minutes from Downtown to Northridge, with service every 30 minutes continuing to Santa Rita. This would provide frequent service in Salinas’ second densest corridor, with many people and jobs nearby.

Most of Salinas would
be served every 15 to
30 minutes, with timed
transfers at Salinas Transit
Center.

This would make it possible
to travel across town in any
direction with just a short
wait for a second bus.

South Main Street and Romie Lane would have
all-day service every 30 minutes on a new Line 43.

Combined with timed transfers at Salinas Transit Center, this would connect many jobs, residents and important
destinations in this area to the rest of Salinas by transit.

Line 96 would go to the same areas the
existing Line 48 goes, on weekdays only.

Reading the Maps
As in the rest of this report, this map
shows bus lines color-coded by midday
frequency on weekdays.
• Red lines run about every 15 minutes.
• Blue lines run about every 30 minutes.
• Green lines run about once an hour.
• Gold lines run less than once an hour.

How Timed Transfers Would Work
Timed transfers would make it possible
to connect from one bus line to another
without a long wait.

Blue lines would arrive at Salinas Transit
Center at :10 and :40 minutes after the
hour, and leave at :15 and :45.

Green lines would arrive at Salinas Transit
Center :10 minutes after the hour, and
leave at :15.

Lines 28 and 29 would alternate, but
there would always be a departure to
Watsonville at :15 after the hour as well.

Red Lines would not have a timed transfer,
but the next bus would be scheduled to
always come within 15 minutes. In practice,
most passengers connecting to and from
red lines at Salinas Transit Center would
experience a 5 to 10 minute wait. On
evenings and weekends, red lines would
function like blue lines.

Salinas would remain
connected to the rest of
the region by Lines 20
(Monterey), 23 (King City),
28 and 29 (Watsonville),
and 61 (Marina-VA Clinic),
but local and regional
connections would be
facilitated by timed
transfers.

A direct route to the
CSUMB campus would
also be reinstated as
Line 25X, with service
once an hour when
classes are in session*.

Line 23 would become much more frequent,
operating once an hour to and from King City.

Line 23 would also remain on Highway 101 coming
into Salinas, allowing for faster travel to and from
cities in the Highway 101 corridor. However, it
would terminate at Salinas Transit Center instead
of continuing to Hartnell College.

A new Line 46 would
serve Natividad Hospital
and Salinas Adult School
every 30 minutes from
Downtown Salinas,
making those destinations
reachable from across the
region.

Line 45 would be shortened,
so that it could operate every
60 minutes instead of every 75
minutes. It would no longer serve
Boronda Road to Northridge.

Line 47 would run every 60 minutes between
Hartnell’s main campus and its Alisal campus. This
is a continuation of a service MST began in mid2021. It is not included in the Low Scenario.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 34
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Salinas – How many people would be near service?
Existing Service
Figure 27 (below left) shows how many Salinas residents and jobs are located within a halfmile walk of a stop on an existing MST bus line, and the level of service available on the most frequent route at that stop.
• 77% of Salinas residents and 61% of jobs in Salinas are near an existing MST bus line, regardless of how often that bus line runs.
• But only 44% of Salinas residents and 29% of jobs are located near service that runs about every 30 minutes or better. Most Salinas residents are near either very infrequent service, or no service at all.
• Among residents in poverty, 41% live near service every 15 minutes or better, and 55% live near service every 30 minutes or better. This is almost all related to Line 41, from Downtown to Alisal to Northridge.

Proposed Final Network
Figure 28 (below right) shows the same information, if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented.
• The total number of Salinas residents and jobs near an MST bus line would increase slightly, to 80% of residents (+3%) and 66% of jobs (+5%). • The number of Salinas residents and jobs near service every 30 minutes or better would increase to 66% of residents (+22%) and 54% of jobs (+25%). • 50% of residents in poverty would be near service every 15 minutes or better (+9%). • 74% of residents in poverty would live near service every 30 minutes or better (+19%).

Figure 27: Chart showing the percentage of Salinas residents and jobs within a half-mile walk of existing MST bus lines.

Figure 28: Chart showing the percentage of Salinas residents and jobs that would be within a halfmile walk of MST bus lines in the Medium Scenario.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 35
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Salinas – Low, Medium and High Scenarios
Low Scenario
The Low Scenario is a contingency plan to help define
how MST would react to either (a) lower revenues than
expected or (b) an insufficient number of drivers to
operate the Medium Scenario (or some other unexpected
resource constraint). In the Low Scenario, proposed
service would be similar to the Medium Scenario, except for the following changes:
• Red and blue lines would end service an hour earlier
in the evening, at 9 PM on weekdays and 8 PM on
weekends.
• Lines 43 and 44 would operate once an hour instead
of every 30 minutes.
• MST would not operate direct service from Salinas to
CSUMB on the new Line 25X, nor the shuttle between
Hartnell campuses on Line 47.

Medium Scenario
The Medium Scenario would operate as described in
previous pages. The map below is provided for reference and comparison purposes.

Reading the Maps
As in the rest of this report, the maps on
this page show bus lines color-coded by
midday frequency on weekdays.
• Red lines run about every 15 minutes.
• Blue lines run about every 30 minutes.
• Green lines run about once an hour.
• Gold lines run less than once an hour.

High Scenario
The High Scenario is designed to show where and how
much MST could increase service if a new funding source appeared in the future. The most likely source for new
funds would be a new countywide 1/8-cent sales tax, if
voters were to approve. In the High Scenario, proposed
service would be similar to the Medium scenario, except for the following changes:
• Line 20, Line 47, and the northern half of Line 41 would all be upgraded to run every 15 minutes.
• Line 46 would be extended northward from Natividad
Hospital to Boronda Road and Northridge Mall.
• There would be a new Line 59 to Gilroy, running every 90 minutes and connecting to VTA and Caltrain.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 36
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Monterey Bay & Peninsula – Existing
Reading the Maps
The maps on this and the following page
depict how MST bus lines are currently
organized in the greater Seaside-Monterey
urban area, and how that would change if
this plan were implemented.

These maps are annotated with comments
that explain how the existing network
operates, and how that would change in
the future.

Lines 1 and 2 cover
Pacific Grove every 60
minutes on long and very
circuitous paths. These
routes maximize coverage, but also ensure that
any transit trip beginning
or ending in Pacific Grove
requires a long wait.

Line 20 provides a regional connection
every 30 minutes between Monterey,
Sand City, Marina and Salinas. This is MST’s
highest-ridership regional route, by far.

Service to CSUMB and parts of
Marina is provided by two MST bus
lines. Both operate once an hour.

Line 16 connects parts of Marina and
student housing to the main campus.

Line 18 connects Monterey, Seaside and
Marina every 60 minutes along a path
that duplicates much of the Jazz routes
and Line 20.

Pre-pandemic, MST operated other lines
(19, 25, 26) under contract to CSUMB.

The Jazz A and B routes
operate every 30 to 35
minutes, connecting Seaside
to Downtown Monterey and
Cannery Row. This is a critical connection between areas where many low-income people
live, and where many jobs and
services are located.

Many very infrequent routes overlap in the hills above Monterey, and in between Monterey and Carmel-by-the-Sea. The complexity of service compensates for challenging pedestrian environments by providing bus stops to many isolated locations. However, for riders, this tends to mean time spent researching the best route as well as a very long wait.

Carmel-by-the-Sea is connected
to Monterey by multiple MST bus
lines, but they all run at different
frequencies and have different endpoints. So even though there might be 3 buses per hour, there is often 30
to 40 minutes between buses.

Specialized commuter routes like Line
11 (Carmel) and Line 21 (Pebble Beach)
provide fast service, but they run just a few
times a day in the morning and afternoon.

These are only useful for workers with very
specific commute hours, who are also
heading straight home after work.

MST also currently offers an
on-call service for trips within
Marina. This service is available
to the general public from 8 AM
to 6 PM, seven days a week.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 37
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Monterey Bay & Peninsula – Medium Scenario
Reading the Maps
As in the rest of this report, this map
shows bus lines color-coded by midday
frequency on weekdays.
• Red lines run about every 15 minutes.
• Blue lines run about every 30 minutes.
• Green lines run about once an hour.
• Gold lines run less than once an hour.

How Timed Transfers Would Work
Timed transfers would make it possible
to connect from one bus line to another
without a long wait.

At Monterey Transit Plaza:
• Blue lines would arrive at :10 and :40
minutes after the hour, and leave at :15
and :45.
• Green lines would arrive at :10 minutes
after the hour, and leave at :15.
• Red Lines would not have a timed
transfer, but the next bus would be
scheduled to always come within 15
minutes. In practice, most passengers
connecting to and from red lines would
experience a 5 to 10 minute wait. On
evenings and weekends, red lines
would function like blue lines.

At Sand City Station, Lines 17 and 18
would be scheduled to arrive 3 minutes
before and leave 3 minutes after Line 20.

At Carmel Rancho, Lines 2 and 24 would
both arrive at :40 minutes after the hour
and leave at :45.

Service in Pacific Grove would
be consolidated into a single
Line 1, with service every 30
minutes between Monterey and
Downtown Pacific Grove. It would
then split into a two-way loop to
serve the rest of the city. There
would no longer be service on Del
Monte Blvd. or 17 Mile Dr.

Line 20 would continue to provide
the main regional connection between
Monterey, Sand City, Marina and Salinas.

The Jazz lines would combine
to 15 minute frequency from
Cannery Row to south Seaside,
with each branch (A and B) running
every 30 minutes. This would be
made possible by keeping Jazz A on
Fremont Blvd. at Monterey Peninsula
College (MPC). Some MPC students
and staff would have longer walks,
but many more passengers would
benefit from the more direct routing,
and all passengers would benefit
from the higher frequency.

The complex web of routes in the hills above Monterey would be replaced by three main lines operating at least once an hour. Some areas where the bus runs just a few times a day would lose service.
• Line 2 would connect Monterey to Carmel-by-the-Sea every 30 minutes. • Line 7 would connect Downtown Monterey to Monterey Airport and Ryan Ranch every 60 minutes.
• Line 8 would connect Downtown Monterey to Glenwood and CHOMP via Del Monte Center every 60 minutes.

Carmel-by-the-Sea would be
served primarily by Line 2,
with service every 30 minutes
to Monterey.

An extension of the new Line 8
would also provide senior-oriented service every two hours in Carmel-by-the-Sea and the
Carmel Valley, replacing existing
Lines 91 and 92.

Peak-hour only express
service like Line 11 (SeasideCarmel) and Line 21
(Salinas-Pebble Beach) would
no longer be provided.

CSUMB would be connected to
Marina and Sand City/Seaside every
30 minutes. This would be through a
combination of two hourly routes with
staggered schedules.

Lines 17 and the new Line 18 would
connect Sand City, CSUMB and
Marina via two paths serving different areas of north Seaside and South Marina in old Fort Ord.

Access to Lines 17 and 18 would be
facilitated by a timed transfer to and
from Line 20 at Sand City Station.

Marina on-call
service would no
longer be provided.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 38
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Monterey Bay & Peninsula – How many people would be near service? Existing Service
Figure 29 (below left) shows how many residents and jobs in the greater Seaside-Monterey urban area are located within a half-mile walk of a stop on an existing MST bus line, and the level of service available on the most frequent route at that stop. • 68% of residents and jobs in the greater Seaside-Monterey urban area are near an existing MST bus line, regardless of how often that bus line runs. • But only 39% of residents and 41% of jobs in the greater Seaside-Monterey urban area are located near service that runs about every 30 minutes or better. Most residents are either near very infrequent service, or no service at all.
• Among residents in poverty, 15% live near service about every 20 minutes (i.e. the shared segment of the Jazz A and B lines), and 55% live near service about every 30 minutes or better. Many of these residents live in either Seaside near the Jazz A and B, or in Marina near Line 20.

Proposed Final Network
Figure 30 (below right) shows the same information, if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented.
• In the greater Seaside-Monterey urban area, the total number residents and jobs near an MST bus line would decline very slightly, to 67% of residents and jobs (-1%). • The number of residents and jobs near service every 30 minutes or better would increase to 51% of residents (+12%) and 54% of jobs (+13%). • 62% of residents in poverty would live near service every 30 minutes or better (+7%). • 14% of all residents, 30% of jobs, and 18% of residents in poverty would be near service every 15 minutes or better. This would be made possible by eliminating the Jazz A deviation into Monterey Peninsula College and modifying the Jazz routing into Sand City Station.

Figure 29: Chart showing the percentage of residents and jobs within a half-mile walk of existing MST bus lines in the greater Seaside-Monterey urban area.

Figure 30: Chart showing the percentage of residents and jobs in the greater Seaside-Monterey urban area that would be within a half-mile walk of MST bus lines in the Medium Scenario.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 39
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Monterey Bay & Peninsula – Low, Medium and High Scenarios Low Scenario
The Low Scenario is a contingency plan to help define
how MST would react to either (a) lower revenues than
expected or (b) an insufficient number of drivers to
operate the Medium Scenario (or some other unexpected
resource constraint). In the Low Scenario, proposed
service would be similar to the Medium Scenario, except for the following changes:
• Red and blue lines would end service an hour earlier
in the evening, at 9 PM on weekdays and 8 PM on
weekends.
• MST would not operate Line 24 to Carmel Valley
Village. Service in the Carmel Valley would be limited
to a longline of Route 8 to Del Mesa Dr., replacing
existing service on Lines 91 and 92.
• MST would not operate direct service from CSUMB to
Salinas on the new Line 25X.

Medium Scenario
The Medium Scenario would operate as described in
previous pages. The map below is provided for reference and comparison purposes.

In the High Scenario, proposed service would be similar to the Medium scenario, except for the following changes:
• The Jazz A and B would continue operating until midnight, seven days a week, although at lower evening frequencies. • Line 20 (Salinas to Monterey) would be upgraded to run every 15 minutes on weekdays.
• If the SURF! project is completed, a new Line 15 would connect CSUMB to Line 20 for faster regional connections. • Lines 17 and 18 would combine into a single path from CSUMB to Marina Transit Exchange. A new Line 16 would
restore basic coverage to the Abrams Dr. area in Marina.

JARRETT WALKER
+ ASSOCIATES | 40
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Regional Service – Existing
Reading the Maps
The maps on this and the following pages
depict how MST regional bus lines are
currently organized. These maps are anno-
tated with comments that explain how the
existing network operates, and how that
would change in the future.

Most MST regional lines connect more
rural parts of Monterey County to
Monterey, Salinas and Watsonville.

MST also considers Lines 20, 21 and 61
to be regional, because they originate in
Salinas and go to the greater SeasideMonterey-Marina area. However, these are covered in more detail in prior sections.

As in the rest of this report, this map
shows bus lines color-coded by midday
frequency on weekdays. • Blue lines run about every 30 minutes. • Green lines run about once an hour. • Gold lines run less than once an hour.

There are no red lines on this map
because no regional service runs every 15
minutes or better at this time.

Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield and
King City are served by: • Line 23, a regional connector to Salinas. It runs 11 to 14 times a day
on weekdays, at widely varying intervals. It tends to run every two hours in the middle of the day.
• Line 84, a twice a day extension of
Line 23 to San Lucas, San Ardo, San
Miguel and Paso Robles.
• On-call services for short local trips
within each city. These often have
very long wait times, especially at
high-demand times.

Big Sur is served
by Line 22. It has
been operating three
times a day every day
during the pandemic,
but was previously a
weekend-only service.

The Carmel Valley
is served by Line 24,
with service every 40
minutes to Carmel-bythe-Sea and Monterey.

Lines 28 and 29 each
operate every two hours,
combining to provide hourly
service between Salinas and
Watsonville.

Line 28 travels via Castroville and
Highway 1. Line 29 travels via
Prunedale and Las Lomas.

Line 55 to San Jose has been
suspended since March 2020.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 41
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Regional Service – Medium Scenario
Line 23 from Salinas to King City would
become more frequent, regularly running every 60
minutes on weekdays and weekends, and every 30
minutes during weekday morning peak hours.

Line 23 would also be faster and more direct:
travel time from Salinas Transit Center to King City
would be 20 minutes shorter, averaging 1 hour and
20 minutes.

This would be made possible by making fewer
deviations on Highway 101; terminating the route at
Salinas Transit Center instead of Hartnell College;
and additional investment in service.

Line 22 to Big Sur
would be discontinued, due to the very
small number of people
and jobs served at a
relatively high cost.

Line 24 from Carmel Valley would operate
every 60 minutes and end at Carmel Rancho,
with a timed transfer to and from Line 2 for trips
to Downtown Carmel, Monterey and points beyond.

Lines 28 and 29 would continue to
provide service between Salinas and
Watsonville at similar frequencies.

Timed transfers would save passengers to and from Watsonville 25 to 55 minutes when connecting
to another bus at Salinas Transit
Center.

As a service with a
very high cost per rider
that does not provide
unique coverage within
MST’s service area, Line
55 to San Jose would
not be restored.

On-call services would be replaced
by investing in local circulators
running every 30 minutes in Gonzales
(Line 31), Soledad (Line 32), Greenfield
(Line 33) and King City (Line 34).

Converting on-call services to regular circulators will ensure higher capacity and shorter, more regular and more predictable wait times.

Line 84 would continue to
operate twice a day to San Lucas,
San Ardo, San Miguel and Paso
Robles, with departures and arrivals
scheduled to match Line 23.

Reading the Maps
As in the rest of this report, this map
shows bus lines color-coded by midday
frequency on weekdays.
• Blue lines run about every 30 minutes.
• Green lines run about once an hour.
• Gold lines run less than once an hour.

There are no red lines on this map
because no regional service is proposed
to run every 15 minutes or better in the
Medium Scenario.

How Timed Transfers Would Work
Timed transfers would make it possible
to connect from one bus line to another
without a long wait.

At Monterey Transit Plaza:
• Blue lines would arrive at :10 and :40
minutes after the hour, and leave at :15
and :45.
• Green lines would arrive at :10 minutes
after the hour, and leave at :15.

At Salinas Transit Center:
• Blue lines would arrive at :10 and :40
minutes after the hour, and leave at :15
and :45.
• Green lines would arrive at :10 minutes
after the hour, and leave at :15.
• Lines 28 and 29 would alternate, but
there would always be a departure to
Watsonville at :15 after the hour as well.

At Carmel Rancho, Lines 2 and 24 would
both arrive at :40 minutes after the hour
and leave at :45.

Line 29 would no longer operate on North Main Street
in Salinas. Instead, it would stay on Highway 101 for a faster travel time. Passengers traveling between North Salinas and Watsonville would need to transfer at Salinas Transit Center.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 42
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Regional Service – Low, Medium and High Scenarios
Low Scenario
The Low Scenario is a contingency plan to help define
how MST would react to either (a) lower revenues than
expected or (b) an insufficient number of drivers to
operate the Medium Scenario (or some other unexpected
resource constraint). In the Low Scenario, proposed
service would be similar to the Medium Scenario, except for the following changes:
• Line 23 from Salinas to King City would operate every 90 minutes (instead of every 60 minutes) in the middle
of the day on weekdays, and on weekends. Morning
peak service would remain every 30 minutes, and
afternoon and evening service every 60 minutes.
• Line 24 to the Carmel Valley would be discontinued.

Medium Scenario
The Medium Scenario would operate as described in
previous pages. The map below is provided for reference and comparison purposes.

High Scenario
The High Scenario is designed to show where and how
much MST could increase service if a new funding source appeared in future. The most likely source for new funds would be a new countywide 1/8-cent sales tax, if voters were to approve. In the High Scenario, proposed service would be similar to the Medium scenario, except for the following changes:
• Line 20 between Monterey and Salinas would be
upgraded to run every 15 minutes.
• There would be a new Line 59 to Gilroy, running every 90 minutes and connecting to VTA and Caltrain for
access to the Bay Area.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 43
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – Existing 15 20 30 60 90 ●
4 AM
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
AM
4 AM
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
AM
Jazz A/B Aquarium-Sand City 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Jazz A 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Jazz B 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 1 Asilomar-Monterey 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 2 Pacific Grove-Carmel 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 3 CHOMP-Monterey ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 7 Del Rey Oaks-Monterey ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
11 Carmel-Sand City ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 16 Marina-CSUMB 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 18 Monterey-Marina 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 20 Monterey-Salinas 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 90 60 60 60 60 60 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 21 Pebble Beach-Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 22 Big Sur-Monterey ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 23 Salinas-King City 25 60 60 60 60 90 90 90 90 90 60 30 60 60 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 24 Carmel Valley 40 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 60 60 60 60 60 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 28 Watsonville-Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 29 Watsonville-Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 41 Salinas-Alisal 35 30 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 40 40 40 25 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 60 60 Longline to Northridge 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 25 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 60 60 42 Westridge-Alisal 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 44 Northridge-Salinas 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 45 Northridge-Salinas 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 48 Airport Business Center 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 49 Salinas-Santa Rita 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 61 Veteran's Shuttle ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 84 King City-Paso Robles ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 91 Sand City -Pacific Meadows ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 92 CHOMP-Pacific Meadows ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 93 Ryan Ranch-Monterey ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 94 Sand City-Carmel ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
95 Williams Ranch-Northridge ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

WEEKDAYS WEEKEND
Monterey-Salinas Transit - Early 2021 Route Frequencies The bus comes about every:
15 minutes
or better
16-25
minutes
26-39
minutes
40-60
minutes
Over 60
minutes
Limited (8 trips or less
per day)
This page shows how often MST buses
are running on existing bus lines.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 44
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – Medium Scenario 15 30 60 ●
5 AM
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PM
5 AM
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PM
Jazz A/B Aquarium-Sand City 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Jazz A Sand City via Hilby 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Jazz B Sand City via Broadway 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Two-way loop past Downtown PG 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2 Monterey - Carmel 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 7 Ryan Ranch-Monterey 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 8 Monterey-CHOMP 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Longline to CHOMP, Carmel, Del Mesa ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 17/18 Sand City-Marina 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 17 Sand City-Marina via CSUMB 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 18 Sand City-Marina via Monterey Rd 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 20 Monterey-Salinas 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 23 Salinas-King City 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 24 Carmel Valley 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 25X Salinas-CSUMB (in-session only) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 28 Watsonville - Castroville - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 29 Watsonville - Prunedale - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 31 Gonzales Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 32 Soledad Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 33 Greenfield Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 34 King City Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 41 Salinas-Alisal 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Northridge 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 43 Salinas TC - Romie Lane 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 44 Salinas TC - Boronda 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 45 Salinas TC - Sanborn Road 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 46 Salinas TC - Natividad 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 47 Salinas TC - Hartnell East Alisal 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 49 Salinas TC - North Main 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Bolsa Knolls 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 61 Veteran's Shuttle ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 84 King City-Paso Robles ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 94 Sand City-Carmel ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
95 Williams Ranch-Northridge ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 96 Airport Business Center 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Limited (8 trips
or less per day)
Proposed MST Bus Line Frequencies - Medium Scenario
The bus comes about every:

WEEKDAYS WEEKEND
15 minutes
or better
30 minutes 60 minutes
The Medium Scenario is the most likely
scenario. It is effectively “the plan,”
barring unforeseen circumstances.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 45
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – Low Scenario 15 30 60 ●
5 AM
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
PM
6 AM
7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
PM
Jazz A/B Aquarium-Sand City 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Jazz A Sand City via Hilby 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Jazz B Sand City via Broadway 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Two-way loop past Downtown PG 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2 Monterey - Carmel 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 7 Ryan Ranch-Monterey 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 8 Monterey-CHOMP 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Longline to CHOMP, Carmel, Del Mesa ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 17/18 Sand City-Marina 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 17 Sand City-Marina via CSUMB 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 18 Sand City-Marina via Monterey Rd 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 20 Monterey-Salinas 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 23 Salinas-King City 30 30 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 60 60 60 60 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 28 Watsonville - Castroville - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 29 Watsonville - Prunedale - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 31 Gonzales Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 32 Soledad Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 33 Greenfield Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 34 King City Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 41 Salinas-Alisal 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Northridge 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 43 Salinas TC - Romie Lane 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 44 Salinas TC - Boronda 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 45 Salinas TC - Sanborn Road 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 46 Salinas TC - Natividad 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 49 Salinas TC - North Main 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Bolsa Knolls 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 61 Veteran's Shuttle ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 84 King City-Paso Robles ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 94 Sand City-Carmel ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
95 Williams Ranch-Northridge ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 96 Airport Business Center 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

WEEKDAYS WEEKEND
15 minutes
or better
Proposed MST Bus Line Frequencies - Low Scenario
The bus comes about every:
30 minutes 60 minutes Limited (8 trips
or less per day)
The Low Scenario is a contingency plan
in case MST revenues or bus driver
availability were lower than expected.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 46
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – High Scenario 15 30 60 ●
5 AM
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
AM
6 AM
7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
AM
Jazz A/B Aquarium-Sand City 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Jazz A Sand City via Hilby 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Jazz B Sand City via Broadway 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Two-way loop past Downtown PG 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2 Monterey - Carmel 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 7 Ryan Ranch-Monterey 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 8 Monterey-CHOMP 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Longline to CHOMP, Carmel, Del Mesa ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 15 SURF-CSUMB Shuttle 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 16 Marina TE-Abrams 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 17/18 Sand City-Marina 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 17 Sand City-Marina via CSUMB 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 18 Sand City-Marina via Monterey Rd 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 20 Monterey-Salinas 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 23 Salinas-King City 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 24 Carmel Valley 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 25X Salinas-CSUMB (in-session only) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 28 Watsonville - Castroville - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 29 Watsonville - Prunedale - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 31 Gonzales Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 32 Soledad Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 33 Greenfield Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 34 King City Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 41 Salinas-Northridge 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 43 Salinas TC - Romie Lane 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 44 Salinas TC - Boronda 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 45 Salinas TC - Sanborn Road 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 46 Salinas TC - Natividad 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 47 Salinas TC - Hartnell East Alisal 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 49 Salinas TC - North Main 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Bolsa Knolls 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 59 Salinas - Gilroy ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 61 Veteran's Shuttle ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 84 King City-Paso Robles ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 94 Sand City-Carmel ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
95 Williams Ranch-Northridge ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 96 Airport Business Center 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

WEEKDAYS WEEKEND
15 minutes
or better
Proposed MST Bus Line Frequencies - High Scenario
The bus comes about every:
30 minutes 60 minutes Limited (8 trips
or less per day)
The High Scenario represents what
MST could do if voters passed
another 1/8-cent sales tax for service.
| 47 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
6 How would this plan make transit
more useful?
JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 48
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
More people would be near service, and service would be more frequent.

Existing Service
Figure 31 (below left) shows how many residents and jobs in Monterey County are located within a half-mile walk of a stop on an existing MST bus line, and the level of service available on the most frequent route at that stop.

When the bus doesn’t come very often, using transit requires lots of waiting; but few people can afford to spend an hour or more waiting for a trip they need to make every day, and fewer people want to. The low frequencies in the existing MST network suggest that most Monterey County residents don’t live near transit that comes often enough to be useful, even if the bus went directly to the places they need to go. • Only 27% of county residents and 20% of jobs are near service that comes about every 30 minutes or better on weekdays.
• Only 10% of residents and 6% of jobs are near service that comes every 15 minutes or better.

Proposed Final Plan
Figure 32 (below right) shows the same information, if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented.

Frequency alone doesn’t guarantee that a new or changed bus line will be especially useful.

But if a bus doesn’t come very often, few people will ever use it for more than occasional trips. As such, the higher frequencies in this plan suggest the plan has the potential to provide service that is useful to more people, for more trips. • The number of people and jobs near service every 30 minutes or better would increase to 46% of county residents (+19%) and 37% of jobs (+17%). This includes a majority of residents in poverty (57%).
• The number of people and jobs near service every 15 minutes would increase to 17% of residents (+7%) and 16% of jobs (+10%).

Figure 31: Chart showing the percentage of residents and jobs within a half-mile walk of existing MST bus lines in Monterey County.

Figure 32: Chart showing the percentage of residents and jobs in Monterey County that would be within a half-mile walk of MST bus lines in the Medium Scenario.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 49
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Most transit trips would take far less time.

In the following pages, we’ll show you two
different ways to think about how much more
or less time transit trips would take if this plan
were implemented.

Example Trip Itineraries
The most concrete way of understanding
whether transit trips would be shorter or
longer in future is to plot out exactly how long
those trips take today, and how that would
change. This chapter provides nine examples
selected to represent:
• Experiences from many different parts of
MST’s service area.
• A range of trip lengths and purposes.
• In most cases, trips that would need to
occur at a specific time in someone’s day.

The goal is to show what each trip entails,
based on the choices that a reasonable and
able-bodied person could make, if they
needed to get somewhere by a certain time.

In existing service, travel times were calculated by seeking directions from Google for Wednesday, August 18, 20211.

Trip examples in proposed service used the
same start and arrival constraints, making
adjustments to in-vehicle travel time if the path
taken on the bus had changed2.

Trip examples are provided on page 51 to
page 59.
1 In one case (Monterey to East Salinas at 4 PM), Google suggested transit directions that appeared less efficient than what the authors of this report could read from the MST schedules for Lines 20 and

21. In that specific case, the trip example was modified from the original Google directions.
2 For both existing and future trips, the examples assume that (a) a passenger would want to reach their initial bus stop at least five minutes before the bus is scheduled to arrive and (b) a passenger would plan to arrive at their final destination at least five minutes early, to avoid being late if their bus were running late.

Calculating Travel Times
Every transit trip is made up of walking, waiting, and riding.

Most transit trips begin and end with walking (or
rolling) to and from your destinations. The amount
of walking depends on the location of the nearest
relevant bus stop for that trip.

Often when people think of riding somewhere by
transit they only consider the time spent on the bus
or train. It is important to remember that every
transit trip is made up of time spent walking (or
rolling) and time spent waiting.

Waiting doesn’t just happen at the start of your
ride, it also happens at the end. You may not
need to leave the house long before your departure, but if your bus is infrequent, you have to choose between being very early or too late.

For these trip examples, we assume you arrive at
the first stop five minutes early to make sure you
don’t miss the bus. We also count the difference
between your intended and scheduled arrival time
as waiting time.

Time spent riding will mostly remain similar
between the Existing Network and the Draft
Network Plan scenarios, since buses won’t
suddenly run faster on the same roads. However,
there will be some time savings in places where
bus lines would be straighter and more direct.

Walking to and
from a stop
Waiting for the
next bus or train
Riding to your
destination
Trip
Start
Trip
End
Walking
Walking
Waiting
Waiting
Riding
Riding
Waiting at
Destination
Origin-Destination Matrix
It would be impossible to plot out every possible trip that someone does or could make on transit in Monterey County.

To provide a broader perspective on the
degree to which trips get longer or shorter,
page 50 shows a comparison of average
travel times in existing service vs. in the
Medium Scenario of this plan for 15 prominent locations throughout MST’s service area.

Important: Waiting time
counts!
Few people have the liberty of arriving when
they please for all their trips, or to control
their appointments or social activities so they
end exactly at the right time to catch the bus
home. Riding transit means waiting somewhere. The more frequent the service, the shorter the wait.

Both the origin-destination matrix and the trip
examples include the impacts of waiting on
total travel time.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 50
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Travel Time Change Between Key Locations
Weekdays - Medium Scenario
Shorter by over 60 min Shorter by 30 to 60 min Shorter by 15 to 30 min Shorter by 5 to 15 min = Unchanged Longer by 15 to 30 min Longer by 5 to 15 min
Carmel
Valley
Carmel-bythe-Sea CSUMB King City Marina Monterey -
Downtown
PG -
Downtown
Salinas -
Alisal
Salinas -
Downtown
Salinas -
Natividad
Salinas -
Northridge Sand City Seaside Soledad Watsonville
+ 10 min -25 min -65 min -5 min + 10 min -15 min = -5 min -35 min -35 min = + 5 min -55 min -15 min -40 min -80 min -15 min -5 min -30 min -15 min -15 min -50 min -45 min -15 min -5 min -65 min -25 min -85 min -5 min -20 min -15 min -5 min -10 min -45 min -40 min -10 min -15 min -75 min -35 min -60 min -60 min -90 min -40 min -45 min -75 min -80 min -60 min -60 min -35 min -70 min = -30 min = = -35 min -30 min = = -50 min -10 min
-15 min = = -35 min -30 min = -5 min -50 min -10 min
-35 min -35 min -70 min -65 min -30 min = -85 min -45 min = -5 min = -5 min -5 min -35 min =
-25 min -30 min = = -40 min =
= -40 min -40 min -70 min -25 min
-30 min -30 min -95 min -5 min
= -50 min -10 min
-50 min -10 min
-65 min
Monterey - Downtown
Carmel Valley
Carmel-by-the-Sea
CSUMB
King City
Marina
Seaside
Soledad
Pacific Grove - Downtown
Salinas - Alisal
Salinas - Downtown
Salinas - Natividad
Salinas - Northridge Mall
Sand City
Change in Average Travel Times Between 15 Key Locations Existing Service vs.

Medium Scenario
The chart in Figure 33 shows the average
change in travel time by transit:
• When comparing existing service to the
service proposed in the Medium Scenario
of this plan;
• To travel between any two of 15 selected
locations throughout MST’s service area.

The calculated differences in travel time reflect
changes to:
• Frequency. On average, a passenger will
wait half the time between two buses
for the next bus. If a bus comes every 60
minutes, that means a 30 minute wait on
average. If that same bus would come
every 30 minutes in future, the average
wait would only be 15 minutes. The matrix
shows this kind of change as a 15 minute
time savings.
• Timed Transfers. The existing MST
network has very few timed transfers. A
passenger connecting from one line that
runs every 30 minutes to another line that
runs every 30 minutes would need to wait
an average of 15 minutes for their second
bus. This plan includes timed transfers for
all lines that run every 30 and every 60
minutes, so in most cases that wait would
be reduced to 5 minutes. The matrix shows
this kind of change as a 10 minute savings.
• Routing. In some cases, the lines proposed
in this plan take different routes than existing lines. The resulting differences in travel time on the bus (and walking to and from
bus stops) are also taken into account in the
matrix.

Figure 33: Chart showing the average travel time change between the existing service and the Medium Scenario, if a person were using transit to travel between any two of 15 prominent locations in MST’s service area.

Many transit trips would be 30 or more minutes shorter than they are today if this plan were implemented. Few would be longer.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 51
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Trip Examples - Salinas and Boronda
Example no. 1: North Salinas to South Salinas
Imagine you are a hospital worker living near North Salinas High School. You need to reach your job at Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital (4.5 miles away) and your shift starts at 9:00 AM. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Notice this trip only includes 21 minutes riding the bus, and that you would spend more time waiting at Salinas Transit Center than on either bus. You might even be able to walk from Salinas Transit Center starting at 8:10 AM and arrive at the hospital and arrive at the same time.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would get 25 minutes shorter; you would be able to leave your house 25 minutes later, mostly due to less waiting. This is due to the higher frequency on both routes, and an important scheduling detail: many destinations are within a 10 minute bus ride or a 20 minute walk of Salinas Transit Center. By scheduling buses to come into Salinas TC between 8:35 AM and 8:40 AM, and leave again at 8:45 AM, you can reach most of the jobs in South Salinas on time for a 9:00 AM shift start.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 52
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Example no. 2: Boronda to Hartnell College
Imagine you live in Boronda and take classes at Hartnell College, 2.5 miles away. The class you need to attend starts at 1:00 PM1. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Notice that you would spend more time at Hartnell waiting for class to start than you would spend actually getting to campus.

If you decided to transfer to Route 20 instead of walking, this would only change where you wait. You would spend 15 minutes more waiting for your next bus at Salinas Transit Center, and 12 minutes less waiting on campus for class to start.

Given how long this trip by transit is for a short distance, you might even consider walking the whole distance, which an able-bodied person would be able to do in about an hour. 1 Many in-person classes at Hartnell College in Fall 2021 are scheduled to start around 9:40 AM, 1:00 PM and 6:00 PM.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would get 30 minutes shorter; you would be able to leave your house 30 minutes later, mostly due to less waiting.

You would experience the time savings if you preferred to transfer to Route 20 instead of walking. In either case, you would now arrive just in time for class, after traveling less than 45 minutes.

As in the prior example, the time savings are due to a combination of higher frequency (in this case, service every 30 minutes instead of every 75 minutes on Route 44) and the timing of arrivals and departures at Salinas Transit Center.

The combined time savings would make transit a much more viable option for this trip. It’s still longer than driving (15-20 minutes including time to park and walk to class), but it’s faster than walking and might be easier than asking a family member for a ride.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 53
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Trip Examples - Salinas to Monterey
Example no. 3: East Salinas to Downtown Monterey
Imagine you are a restaurant worker living in East Salinas. You need to reach your job in Downtown Monterey for the start of your lunch shift at 10:00 AM. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

This trip uses two of MST’s most frequent routes, so although it does involve some waiting along the way, this is about as fast as transit can connect two places this far apart while also serving a lot of other major destinations on the way.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip wouldn’t change much. That is because MST has already organized a nearly-timed connection between Line 41 and Line 20 at Salinas Transit Center, and that connection probably wouldn’t shift by more than 5 minutes.

In either case, this kind of service makes it possible to travel regionally from East Salinas, even if you don’t have a car to get around or a carpool of colleagues you can count on. It would, however, still take a long time.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 54
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Trip Examples - Monterey Bay & Peninsula
Example no. 4: Seaside to Pacific Grove
Let’s imagine you are a retail worker living in the center of Seaside, and you need to reach your job at Country Club Gate Center in Pacific Grove (6 miles away) and your shift starts at noon. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Notice that this trip includes a total of only 29 minutes actually riding the bus, and that you would spend more time waiting at your destination than you would getting there.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would get 9 minutes shorter; you would be able to leave your house a few minutes later, mostly due to the scheduling of connections at Monterey Transit Plaza. Because most buses are scheduled to arrive at Monterey Transit Plaza between 11:05 AM and 11:10 AM, and leave again at 11:15 AM, it would be possible to arrive near your destination a little less early.

This example and the next one are in some ways typical of many trips in the greater SeasideMonterey urban area. Timed transfers and small frequency improvements would allow for marginal improvements on many local trips, but those improvements wouldn’t be as significant as the combination of timed transfers and large frequency improvements in Salinas. This is a function of the policy direction of the plan, which would focus more service in Salinas, and slightly reduce service hours overall on the Peninsula.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 55
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Example no. 5: Monterey/Seaside to CSUMB
Let’s imagine you work in an administrative position at California State University - Monterey Bay (CSUMB). You live 6.5 miles away in the Laguna Grande area near the Monterey/Seaside city limits, and your job on campus starts at 8:00 AM. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Existing Route 18 is very direct, but only runs every 60 minutes. So getting to campus would take just a few minutes more than driving, but you’d get to work 43 minutes before you were expected to start. Your only alternative using transit would result in arriving 17 minutes late.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would get 10 minutes shorter. This is because even though you would need to take two buses, the first one would come every 30 minutes, and you would have a timed connection to the second bus, reducing your overall waiting time and allowing you to leave home 10 minutes later.

However, you would still get to work a little earlier than would be ideal, and this would still remain a much longer trip than driving (15-25 minutes door to door, depending on traffic and parking).

Because you are depending on service every 30 minutes instead of every 60 minutes, You would now be faced with the slightly less dire choice of getting to work either 23 minutes early, or 7 minutes late.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 56
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Example no. 6: Monterey to Ryan Ranch
Let’s imagine you live in the Old Town area in Monterey, and you are a senior citizen with regular medical appointments at the CHOMP Outpatient Center in the Ryan Ranch area. Your next appointment is at 2:00 PM. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

If you are not eligible for paratransit, the only way to get to Ryan Ranch on transit is with Line 93, a special-purpose line funded by Measure Q specifically to connect seniors to services and facilities like the medical offices at Ryan Ranch. But Line 93 only runs six times a day, and takes a very long route to Ryan Ranch, so you would spend over an hour and 15 minutes waiting and nearly 45 minutes on the bus for a 6 mile trip.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would become over an hour shorter. This is because the proposed Line 7 would run every 60 minutes and take a much more direct path from Monterey Transit Plaza to Ryan Ranch.

This would still take about twice as long as driving from home. However, there’s no safe way to walk or bike to Ryan Ranch, so transit is the only reasonable alternative. If you live somewhere near a route that would connect to Monterey Transit Plaza, and you couldn’t afford a car or didn’t otherwise need one to go about your daily life, the proposed changes to the network might make using transit a viable option for your medical appointments.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 57
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Example no. 7: Soledad to Watsonville
Let’s imagine you live in Soledad, and you need to go to Watsonville (47 miles away) for an appointment at noon. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Because Line 23 doesn’t connect well with either Line 28 or Line 29 to Watsonville, you would end up waiting almost an hour at Salinas Transit Center to get to your destination. As a result, you would have to leave home before 9:00 AM.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would get over an hour shorter. This is because Line 23 would take a faster, more direct path between Soledad and Salinas, allowing it to arrive on time to make a timed connection with Line 28. You would only wait 5 minutes at Salinas Transit Center.

This would still take about twice as long as driving. But this kind of trip is so long that it would be relatively difficult to convince a friend or family member to take you to Watsonville and back in a single day, let alone regularly. By making this trip an hour shorter, this plan would reduce the hassle associated with transit if you didn’t have a car available, or didn’t have a reliable enough car to take a trip that far from home.

Trip Examples - Regional
JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 58
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Example no. 8: Soledad to King City
Let’s imagine you still live in Soledad, but this time you need to go visit a family member at Mee Memorial Hospital in King City, and visiting hours start at noon. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Because Line 23 only runs every two hours in the middle of the day, your last opportunity to get there by noon on the bus requires leaving home before 10:00 AM and waiting over an hour in King City.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would become over an hour shorter; you could leave home closer to 11:00 AM. This is mostly because Line 23 would run every 60 minutes instead of once every two hours in the middle of the day.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 59
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Example no. 9: King City to Hartnell College in Salinas Imagine you live in King City and take classes at Hartnell College main campus in Salinas, almost 50 miles away. The class you need to attend starts at 9:40 AM1. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Line 23 would provide a service all the way to Hartnell, but you would arrive 45 minutes before your class starts and have a long wait on campus.
1 Many in-person classes at Hartnell College in Fall 2021 are scheduled to start around 9:40 AM, 1:00 PM and 6:00 PM.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

Line 23 would terminate at Salinas Transit Center. This would give you the choice to either transfer to Line 20 (with a timed connection and a 5 minute wait, as above) or to walk 12 to 15 minutes from Salinas Transit Center to campus (as shown below). Either way, your trip would become over 30 minutes shorter.

The time savings would come from two sources.
• Faster, more direct path on Line 23. The time riding the bus from King City to Salinas would be reduced by over 20 minutes, because the bus would spend more time on Highway 101 and less time traveling within each city along the way.
• Timed connections in Salinas (specifically, scheduling for most bus lines to arrive at Salinas Transit Center at 9:10 AM and leave at 9:15 AM). This means Line 23 would arrive in Downtown Salinas at 9:10 AM, with time for you to reach Hartnell either on foot or with a transfer to a second bus, but not so much time you would spend most of an hour waiting around on campus. | 60 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
7 Next Steps
JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 61
7 N
e
x
t Steps
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Plan Adoption and Implementation
The Monterey-Salinas Transit COA is combining technical analysis and broad-based community input to develop a post-pandemic
transit network.

So far, this has included the following steps:
• May 2021: Choices Report. This report
(available at http://mst.org/coa) provides
facts about the existing network, and
describes the key choices for future service.

It was developed through a combination
of technical and broad-based community
input.
• June 2021: Committee Direction. The
MST Board of Directors’ Operations
Performance Committee provided the
project team with direction on the key
trade-offs, based on input from the public
and policymakers.
• June-August 2021: Develop a Draft
Network Plan. The project team developed a draft of the redesigned bus network.
• September-October 2021: Public Review
of the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan was presented to the public, as detailed in Chapter 3 of this report.
• November-December 2021: Final Plan.

The project team made changes to the
Draft Plan taking into account public
input and discussions with the Operations
Performance Committee. This report presents the Final Plan.

The next steps in the process will be:
• MST’s Board of Directors must decide
whether or not to adopt this plan in
February 2022.
• MST is targeting implementation of the
revised network in late 2022.

Figure 34: Project timeline. This report presents the Final Plan. The next step will be a decision by MST’s Board of Directors to adopt the plan.

If the Board makes this decision, MST staff will then be responsible for implementation over the course of 2022.

Analyze the Network
Community Input
Choices Report
May 2021
Committee Direction
June 2021
Draft Network Plan
August 2021
Community Input Final Plan
February 2022
Board Decision
February 2022
Redesign the Network
Implementation by MST
JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 62
7 N
e
x
t Steps
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Key Considerations in Network Implementation
If this plan is adopted, MST will need to take a
variety of operational and policy steps over the
course of 2022 before it can be implemented.

The most critical steps are described on this
page and the next one. This is not intended to
be a complete list or set of recommendations,
but a high-level overview of the main issues to
be addressed.

Operator Recruitment
The most immediate barrier to implementation of any new service at MST is the ongoing shortage of bus drivers. This shortage follows
an unusually high number of resignations and
retirements since the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic, combined with a pause on new driver recruitment and training from early 2020
to mid-2021.

To maintain service reliability in the context of
an operator shortage, MST reduced service in
both September and December 2021. Certain
lines listed as “existing” in this report are not
currently operating, and many have fewer runs
per day than in early 2021.

MST has already begun addressing this challenge, recruiting a new class of drivers in the fall of 2021. But MST still does not have
enough staff to operate all the service that it
can fund.

To restore the reliability of existing service
and ensure that the Medium Scenario can
be implemented as planned, MST must hire
more operators throughout 2022.

Fare Policy Changes
Since 2011, MST has set fares by route type.

Current fare policy does not provide free or
discounted transfers.

As a result, MST fares bear little relationship to
the time or distance travelled by an MST rider.

Many short trips can cost $5 or more simply
because the origin and destination are on two
different routes.

The network proposed in this plan allows MST
to reach more people and jobs with more frequent service. This is made possible by relying on transfers, so riders can move seamlessly
across the region.

To allow riders to take advantage of the
new timed transfer system, MST should
change its fare policy as soon as practical.

The simplest alternative to the existing system
is likely to involve:
• Fewer fare types. Either a single fare
systemwide for boarding the first bus, or
limiting to just local vs. regional routes1.
• Free transfers within a set amount of
time. Many agencies allow riders to board
a second bus for free by showing the ticket
they received upon paying their first fare2.

Typically the transfer is valid if the ticket
was issued in the last 2 hours, otherwise a
new fare is required.

Free transfers are easiest to implement when
all routes charge the same fare. But if MST
1 This could still be modulated with a discount for specific groups (e.g. seniors, veterans and people with disabilities).
2 Because most MST riders pay their fares in cash, this summary discussion is written for a cash-and-ticket system. But similar principles can be applied to electronic ticketing systems and other payment technologies. Contactless tap-in tap-out systems (like the one currently being piloted by MST) make it possible to charge distancebased fares, which relate more clearly to MST’s operating costs.

Work is under way to make this new system more widely usable for riders who currently rely on cash.
needs to continue charging a higher fare
for regional service, transfers from local to
regional routes may require a discounted fare.

For example, if a local fare were $2.50 and a
regional fare were $3.50, then a passenger
might be asked to pay $1.00 upon boarding a
regional bus after taking a local bus.

How would free transfers impact
revenue?
Any change in fare policy comes with financial
risks. It is reasonable to think that if MST collected less fare revenue, this might require MST to operate less service. Ensuring this does
not happen will require careful consideration
of fare levels and transfer discounts before any
changes are made.

Nevertheless, an initial review shows that
MST’s fare collections are a small percentage
of the agency’s revenues. With current policies,
MST expects to collect about $2.7 million in
direct fare revenue in Fiscal Year 2023, compared to a total operating budget estimated at over $55 million3.

Even in a very conservative scenario, this
suggests switching to free transfers would cost
MST about 2 to 3% of annual operating costs4.

This represents far less than the 8% difference
between the Low Scenario and Medium
Scenario in this plan, and there are many
reasons to think the real impact on revenue
would be even smaller.
3 See pp. 27-32 of the MST FY 2022 & FY 2023 Budget, adopted on June 14, 2021. As of Jan 14, 2022, this document is available online at: https://mst.org/wp-content/media/Final-Adopted-FY2022- FY2023-Budgets.pdf
4 In this “very conservative scenario”, we assume that changes to the network attract no new ridership and that 100% of existing trips on MST involve transferring. The latter is obviously not true, but MST does not currently have data on what percentage of its trips involve transfers, so it is useful as a conservative estimate.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 63
7 N
e
x
t Steps
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
New Bus Stops
Most bus lines included in this plan would run
on the same streets as existing MST service,
and would be expected to use the same bus
stops. However, some lines would operate
on streets where MST does not currently
operate, or operates in a different pattern
(e.g. one-way vs. two-way). As a result, MST
will need to go through a process to:
• Propose bus stop locations, in places
where the planned service pattern requires
new or changed stops.
• Negotiate with the relevant local governments in charge of streets to establish the allowable locations of these stops
and install any necessary ADA-compliant
improvements.

Based on the changes included in the plan, the
project team expects that the greatest number
of new stops will be needed in:
• Salinas, in areas where MST is proposing
entirely new lines and/or restoring service
that has not operated in a number of years.
• Seaside and Marina, specifically the north of
Seaside and south of Marina where service
would reappear on certain streets.
• Pacific Grove, where many areas that currently receive service on one-way loops would in future receive two-way service, in
some cases on different streets.

In addition, new bus stops will be required in
Gonzales, Greenfield, Soledad and King City
along the new path of Line 23 and circulator
Lines 31, 32, 33 and 34. However, the planning
for these bus stops has already been taking
place as a follow-up to the South County
Service Plan adopted in early 2021.

Transit Center Operations
The bus network proposed in this plan
includes timed transfers at four key locations:

Salinas Transit Center, Monterey Transit Plaza,
Sand City Station and Carmel Rancho.

Timed transfers can be a great boon for riders,
but some operational planning is required to
make it possible for multiple buses to arrive
at one station and occupy space next to
each other at the same time. This will require
detailed looks into:
• The arrival and departure path of each
route into the timed transfer station.
• The specific gate or stop each route should
be assigned to.
• Whether any changes might be required
to existing operating practices to allow
enough space for all incoming buses.

The challenge may be greatest at Monterey
Transit Plaza, where 5 different lines (1, 2, 7, 8
and 20) will be scheduled to arrive at the same
time every hour, while MST will also need to
ensure enough space for the Jazz A and B and
Line 94. Currently Monterey Transit Plaza has
only three gates in use, although the physical
space exists to allow for more.

Bus Storage and
Maintenance
MST has existing bus yards in Monterey and
Salinas, and recently opened a brand new facility in King City. This plan envisions a significant increase in service in Salinas, where the existing facility has limited space.

As a result, MST may need to re-think how
certain routes are staged. For example, it may
be necessary to consider staging all buses
for Line 20 in Monterey only and all buses for
Line 23 in King City only, rather than splitting
vehicles between both ends of those routes.

It may also be preferable to designate a single
facility among MST’s bus yard for more heavyduty maintenance and rebuilding, when buses need multiple days of work before getting
back on the road.

Relationship with Intercity
Services
This plan focuses MST mostly on local service.

But people will still need to travel beyond
Monterey County, so it’s important to consider
how MST should connect to intercity services.

Both Amtrak and Greyhound service have
been reduced in the pandemic5, but regional
planning suggests intercity services may
expand in future, with a potential extension of
Caltrain to Salinas and the arrival of new commercial bus companies.

MST expects the main connection point to
future intercity services will be the Salinas
Intermodal Transit Center. This facility includes
the train station and a bus terminal. It is located
1/4-mile north of MST’s Salinas Transit Center,
about a 5 minute walk for most adults.

Given this short distance and limited current
intercity service, this plan would not send any
MST lines into the Intermodal Transit Center.

However, MST may do so in the future, when
intercity service becomes more regular.

Considerations will include:
• Regional connections. MST regional lines
(such as Line 20 to Monterey and Line 23
to King City) may be a higher priority for
intercity connections, because they would
connect many communities to the intercity
network.
• Operability in the schedule. Sending a
bus from MST’s Salinas Transit Center to the
Intermodal Transit Center and back requires
at least 5 minutes. This limits which lines can
connect to long-distance buses and trains
while maintaining the timed transfer system.
5 At time of writing, Greyhound offered 1-2 bus departures per day from Salinas, and Amtrak offered 1 train departure per day.

Timelines for restoration to pre-COVID service levels are unclear.

Nantucket Blvd &
Hemingway Dr
Nantucket Blvd &
Independence Blvd
Nantucket Blvd &
Declaration St
Constitution Blvd &
Nantucket Blvd
Constitution Blvd &
Beacon Hill Drive
New bus
stops to be
installed
Russell Rd & Main St
Van Buren Ave & Eisenhower St
Van Buren Ave & Russell Rd
Old bus stops
to be
reinstated
Red curb should be sufficient length to accommodate bus stop and pull out.

MST Designing for Transit Guidelines indicates 90 feet. 90' 25' VAN BUREN AVE
RUSSELL RD S A L I NA SC A L I F ORNI A N PROPOSED "BUS STOP" RED ZONE LEGEND PROPOSED "BUS STOP" RED ZONE VAN BUREN AVENUE AT RUSSELL ROAD EXISTING SIGN AND POST 40' 90' 4' 6' VAN BUREN AVE S A L I NA SC A L I FO R NI A N PROPOSED "BUS STOP" RED ZONE LEGEND PROPOSED "BUS STOP" RED ZONE VAN BUREN AVENUE AT EISENHOWER STREET EXISTING SIGN AND POST EISENHOWER ST City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-519, Version: 1
No Parking Bike Lanes on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway Approve a Resolution approving the No Parking Bike Lanes Plan on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/28/2022
powered by Legistar™

CITY OF SALINAS

FREEDOM PARKWAY
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion approving the no parking bike lanes plan on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council approve a Resolution approving the no parking bike lanes plan on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway.

BACKGROUND:

The Mountain Valley Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 1) was certified in 1998. On October 14, 2003, City Council adopted Resolution No. 18392 approving the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM 03-02) for the Mountain Valley Precise Plan (Attachment 2). The Mountain Valley project, now known as Monte Bella, consisted of 853 single family residences, a 21-acre park site, a two (2) acre elementary school site and several well and infrastructure sites. The vesting tentative map contemplated seven phases of construction for full development of the subdivision (Phases 1, 2, 2B, 3, 4, 5 and 6). The final phase of development was recently accepted by City Council through Resolution No. 22400 (Attachment 3) on June 21, 2022.

Following the acceptance of the final phase the streets of Sconberg Parkway (formerly named Alisal Road Extension), and Freedom Parkway were completely opened for the first time. Shortly after the roads were opened to traffic, the City began receiving some complaints regarding onstreet parking on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway. Site photos (Attachment 4) of onstreet parking obstructing the travel ways were submitted to staff through the Salinas Connect application and via email. Staff reviewed the existing conditions and determined that the roads are approximately 32-feet wide which is not wide enough for a collector road to support on-street parking and two-way traffic. Staff reviewed the details from the Mountain Valley Environmental Impact Report and the Precise Plan and discovered that the roads were intended to have class II bike lane with restricted on-street parking. Staff has developed the proposed Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway signing and striping plan to install no parking bike lanes on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway. It is recommended that the City Council approve a Resolution approving the signing and striping plan for no parking bike lanes on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION:

At its September 8th, 2022 the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to approve a motion recommending that the City Council approve a Resolution approving the no parking bike lanes plan on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway. Public comments were received on this item and were supportive of the consideration.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The no parking bike lanes plan on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway supports the Council goals of “Public Safety” and “Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability”.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The estimated cost to install the Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway is $75,000, if the City contracts the work using the job order contract. However, the City may be able to install the no parking signs under its own work force to reduce costs. There are sufficient funds available in CIP 9120 Monte Bella Subdivision Improvements for completion of the work by the City’s work force or contractor.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1: Monte Valley Environmental Impact Report
Attachment 2: Monte Valley Precise Plan
Attachment 3: Resolution 22400
Attachment 4: Site Photos
Attachment 5: Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway Signing and Striping Plan - 1 -
RESOLUTION NO. __________________ (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE NO PARKING BIKE LANES PLAN ON SCONBERG

PARKWAY AND FREEDOM PARKWAY
WHEREAS, the Mountain Valley Environmental Impact Report was certified in 1998.; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2003, City Council adopted Resolution No. 18392 approving the Vesting Tentative Map for the Mountain Valley Precise Plan, now known as the Monte Bella neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the final phase of development was recently accepted by City Council through Resolution No. 22400; and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the details from the Mountain Valley Environmental Impact Report and the Precise Plan and discovered that the roads were intended to have class II bike lane with restricted on-street parking; and
WHEREAS, staff has developed the proposed Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway signing and striping plan to install no parking bike lanes on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway; and
WHEREAS, The Traffic and Transportation Commission unanimously (6-0) to approve a motion recommending that the City Council approve a Resolution approving the no parking bike lanes plan on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway. Public comments were received on this item and were supportive of the consideration.; and
WHEREAS, 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; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the no parking bike lanes plan on Sconberg Parkway and Freedom Parkway.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 4th day of October, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
- 2 -
APPROVED:
________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROJECT
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 93043036
August 1998
Prepared for
City of Salinas
Department of Community Development

MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROJECT
225 Bush Street
Suite 1700
San Francisco,
California
94104
(415) 896-5900
%0352
Final Environmental Impact Report
1000 Broadway
Suite 410
Oakland,
California
94607
(510) 839-5066
SCH# 93043036
August 1998
Prepared for
City of Salinas
Department of Community Development
700 University Avenue
Suite 130
Sacramento.

California
95825
(916) 564-4500
4221 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 480
Los Angeles,
California
90010
(213) 933-6111
ESA Environmental
Science
Associates
I I
I

MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROJECT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 EIR Purpose

1.2 EIR Scope

1.3 CEQA EIR Process

1.4 Previously Raised Environmental Issues
.L2 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments

2.0 SUMMARY

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Project Sponsor's Objectives

3.2 Project Location

3.3 Project Characteristics

3.4 Project Schedule

3.5 Approvals Required

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning

4.2 Traffic and Circulation

4.3 Public Services and Utilities

4.4 Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality

4.5 Air Quality

4.6 Soils Contamination

4.7 Noise

4.8 Flora and Fauna

4.9 Historic and Archeological Resources

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.1 No-Project

5.2 160-Acre Alternative

5.3 General Plan Alternative

5.4 Alternative Site

6.0 IMP ACT OVERVIEW

6.1 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts

6.2 Growth Inducement

6.3 Cumulative Impacts

6.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes

6.5 Impacts Found Not To Be Significant

7.0 EIR AUTHORS; PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
ii
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-3
1-3
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-7
3-8
4-1

4.1-1

4.2-1

4.3-1

4.4-1

4.5-1

4.6-1

4.7-1

4.8-1

4.9-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-5
5-11
6-1
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-5
6-5
7-1

MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROJECT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

8.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFf EIR AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 8-1

2..0 APPENDICES 2.-1
A. Water Use Consultation
B. Traffic and Circulation
C. Air Quality Data
D. Health and Safety Laws and Regulations

LIST OF TABLES
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
S-1. Summary of Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2-7

1. Project Characteristics 3-7

2. Trip Generation for Cumulative Projects 4.2-8

3. Project Trip Generation 4.2-10

4. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis- PM Peak Hour 4.2-13

5. Project Contribution to Study Intersection Traffic Volumes 4.2-19

6. P.M. Peak Hour Freeway Analysis 4.2-22

7. Existing and Projected Water Use 4.4-10

8. Salinas Air Pollutant Summary, 1992-1996 4.5-5

9. Estimated Existing Emissions Associated with the Project Site 4.5-7

10. Estimated Emissions Associated with the Project, Year 2005 4.5-14

11. Estimated Net Increase in Emissions Associated with the Project, Year 2005 4.5-14

12. Projected Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at Selected Intersections 4.5-16

13. Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Exterior Noise Environments 4.7-3

14. Typical Residential Construction Noise Levels 4. 7-7

15. Existing and Projected Peak-Hour Traffic-Noise Levels 4.7-10

16. 160-Acre Alternative Project Characteristics 5-4

17. Trip Generation- Project Alternatives 5-5
iii

MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROJECT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

18. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis - PM Peak Hour 5-6

19. PM Peak Hour Freeway Analysis 5-7

20. Approved and Planned Major Developments 6-4

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Project Area I Regional Location 3-3

2. Project Site Plan 3-6

3. Street Phasing Plan 3-9

4. Surrounding Land Uses 4.1-3

5. Existing General Plan Land Use Designations 4.1-6

6. Existing Zoning Designations 4.1-10

7. Williamson Act Lands 4.1-11

8. Proposed Zoning Designations 4.1-13

9. City of Salinas Sphere of Influence 4.1-14

10. Airport Local Area of Influence 4.1-19

11. Study Area Intersections and Existing Traffic Control 4.2-2

12. Location of Approved and Pending Projects 4.2-9

13. Trip Distribution of Mountain Valley Development 4.2-11

14. Salinas Area Surface Hydrology 4.4-2

15. Salinas Area Groundwater Sub-Basin Boundary 4.4-4

16. Projected Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) 4.7-4

17. 160-Acre Alternative 5-3

18. General Plan Alternative 5-9
lV

, I
i
'

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 EIR PURPOSE
This environmental impact report has been prepared in order to:
• Satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); • Inform the public and responsible and/or interested public agencies of the potential project and cumulative environmental effects of the proposed Mountain Valley project, and of possible measures to mitigate potentially significant environmental effects; and • Enable the Salinas Planning Commission, Salinas City Council, and the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to consider courses of action on the proposed project, including the proposed General Plan amendment, Precise Plan adoption, zoning reclassification, amendment of the Sphere of Influence, and reorganization.

1.2 EIR SCOPE
This EIR identifies and analyzes potential impacts of the proposed approximately 200-acre, 853-dwelling-unit Mountain Valley residential project, by itself and in the context of cumulative development. In evaluating the proposed project effects in a cumulative context, this EIR has analyzed applicable development projects for sites in the project vicinity that the City believes are reasonably foreseeable, including those approved for construction.

The EIR also analyzes alternatives to the proposed project. The No Project Alternative analyzes the existing conditions plus cumulative development in the project vicinity. but without the project. A 160-acre Alternative analyzes a reduced-scale development that would not require adjustment of the Salinas Sphere of Influence, and a General Plan Alternative analyzes residential development at increased densities from that proposed by the project, as currently designated in the Salinas General Plan.

1.3 CEQA EIR PROCESS

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
In accordance with Section 15082 of CEQA Guidelines, the City of Salinas, as the Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR. The NOP was circulated 1-1
i
\ :

I /
\----

2.0 SUMMARY

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would include the following discretionary approvals:
• Certification of this EIR;
• An amendment to the Salinas General Plan land use diagram to reflect predominantly residential medium-density with some residential low-density as well as public/semipublic and park land uses on the site. The current General Plan land use diagram shows predominantly residential low-density with some residential medium-density, some residential high-density, and park land uses;
• Adoption of a Precise Plan;
• Pre-zoning of the site consistent with the Precise Plan; • An amendment to the City of Salinas Sphere of Influence to enlarge the Sphere by approximately 36 acres (to be approved by the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO));
• Reorganization involving 199.7 acres of land including annexation to the City of Salinas, attachment to the Monterey Regional County Sanitation District - Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, and detachment from the Salinas Rural Fire Protection District and the Monterey County Resource Conservation District; and • Subdivision approval, public facilities assessments intended to provide infrastructure improvements, donation in fee title of parklands and an elementary school site, and related actions intended to implement the proposed project.

The approximately 36 acres of the project site that is outside the City of Salinas' Sphere of Influence, as designated by LAFCO, includes the proposed roadway that would border the site on the east, Freedom Parkway. Other proposed improvements outside the current Sphere of Influence includes single-family residential lots, a portion of a community park, a portion of an elementary school, and a lot for a water well. The Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street roadway rights-of-ways would serve as a buffer area between the residential uses and agricultural uses to the east and south. All arterial routes surrounding the project site's boundary would contain a vegetation buffer, a sound wall to reduce traffic noise, a bike lane, and a pedestrian path.
2-1

2.0 Summary
The proposed Precise Plan calls for development of 853 single-family dwelling units and one community park. The single-family dwellings would be constructed in six neighborhoods built around an internal roadway network. The average density of single-family units would be

5.6 units per gross acre. The project includes 661lots ranging in size from 4,000 to 4,500 square feet, including 102 lots (at 4,000 square feet) to be sold as inclusionary housing units. A total of 192 lots would be included at a lot size of 6,500 square feet to be sold at the market rate. The project also would include donation in fee title of a community park of about 21.5 acres and donation in fee title of a 9-acre school site to the Alisal School district. Park improvements consisting of lawn and irrigation would be installed as part of the project. The remaining park improvements would be the responsibility of the City. Two acres would also be sold to the School District for expansion of the Bardin Elementary School site. Semipublic lands are also proposed for dedication, including 1.7 acres for a stormwater detention basin and three 20,000 square foot sites and one 10,000 square foot site for water well lots.

Access to the project site would be from Williams Road, the proposed Freedom Parkway (south of Williams Road), and the proposed East Alisal Street (east of Bardin Road). Access also would be available via three existing streets, Countryside Drive, Argentine Drive, and Del Monte A venue; from the west and northwest. Williams Road would be widened adjacent to the project site. In addition to connections between the project site ;1nd the surrounding roadways, a series of internal streets would be constructed. The streets would extend Countryside Drive, Argentine Drive, and Del Monte Avenue onto the site and would link those three streets with the proposed Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street extensions along the east and south sides of the site.

The proposed project would include a series of "local minor" street loops and cul-de-sacs, connecting to the internal street network, around which the single-family residences would be built. Pedestrian pathways would connect some of the cul-de-sacs with the local street network.

In addition to the roadway network, the proposed project would include development of utility services to supply the site. Four new wells are proposed that would be drilled on-site to supply drinking water and water for fire-fighting. A water supply distribution network would also be constructed. Alco Water Service would use the wells to provide water service to the development.

2.0 Summary
southwest corner of the project site, adjacent to Bardin School. It would be connected to a storm drain network that would be constructed by the sponsor. A sanitary sewer system also would be built, and would be linked to the Salinas Municipal wastewater system. At a projected 3.2 persons per unit, the proposed project would have a buildout population of about 2,730 persons.

2.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Project impacts identified in this EIR are summarized in Table S-1, Summary oflmpacts and Mitigation Measures, located at the end of this chapter. This table lists impacts and mitigation measures in three major categories: significant impacts that would remain significant even with mitigation (significant unavoidable impacts); significant impacts that can be mitigated to a level of less-than-significance; and impacts that would not be significant. For each significant impact, the table includes a summary of mitigation measure(s) identified by the EIR, followed by a column that indicates whether the impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

Please refer to Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures for a complete discussion of each impact and associated mitigation.

2.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

NO-PROJECT
The No-Project Alternative would involve no change in land use on the site. Existing agricultural uses would remain, and no residential uses would be constructed. The project site would not be annexed to the City of Salinas, nor would any of the other changes in governmental organization occur. This alternative would not rule out future development of the site (most likely as residential, given surrounding land uses).

With this alternative, none of the project impacts would occur. Existing conditions would remain much as described in the Setting portions of Chapter 4.0 of this report. Agricultural land would not be converted to urban use. Groundwater pumping and water consumption would remain as at present (that is, overdrafting would be greater than with the proposed project), subject to any future changes that may be required by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency.
2-3

2.0 Summary
160-ACRE ALTERNATIVE
With this alternative, only that portion of the site within the existing City of Salinas Sphere of Influence would be developed, limiting the size of the site to about 160 acres. The principal change in site configuration would be that the eastern project boundary would be moved westerly, compared to the proposed project, to coincide with the Sphere of Influence boundary.

This alternative would result in approximately 691 housing units, which reflects the proposed project's average number of housing units (5.6 units per gross acreage) multiplied by the gross area of residential development (123.4 acres). This alternative would result in development of about 19 percent fewer units (691 vs. 853) than proposed under the project. Based on

3.2 persons per unit, population would be about 2,210 (compared to about 2,730 with the project).

Because this alternative would not extend the project area as far east as the existing Freedom Parkway I Williams Road intersection, this alternative would result in a "jog" between the Freedom/Williams intersection and the easterly project intersection. East Alisal Street would continue to be extended east of Bardin Road as far as the project's eastern boundary. The existing Sphere oflnfluence includes the proposed project's East Alisal Street public right-ofway. Other components, including the internal circulation network and infrastructure improvements, would be similar to those proposed under the project.

This alternative would not require adjustment of the Salinas Sphere of Influence by the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). It would require other governmental reorganization, including annexation to the City of Salinas and annexation to and detachment from the same service districts and public services as the proposed project. About 160 acres of agricultural land, mostly prime farmland, would be converted to urban use; this would be a significant, unavoidable effect, as with the proposed project. Residential water consumption and groundwater pumping for residential water consumption would be marginally less than with the proposed project, but within the 200-acre project site, overall water consumption would be incrementally greater than with the proposed project, since less agriculture would be removed from production.

The 160-Acre alternative would generate a total of about 7,885 daily trips, including about 793 weekday p.m. peak-hour trips (vs. about 9,495 daily trips and about 945 p.m. peak-hour trips with the project). Intersection levels of service resulting from traffic generated by this alternative would be the same as with the project, as would freeway levels of service. As with the project, this alternative would incrementally worsen existing poor operations at three intersections and would contribute to a significant cumulative effect at a fourth. The intersection 2-4

2.0 Summary
connecting Williams Road with Boulevard A would operate at LOS B with traffic from this alternative, as with the project, with mitigation (also required with the project) in the form of signalization. Air quality effects due to project operation would be less than significant, as with the project. Demand for public services would be comparable to that of the project. Due to fewer units, and subsequently fewer potential students, the effects on the school districts would be reduced as compared to the proposed project. Cumulative traffic noise effects along Williams Road would be significant and unavoidable, as with the project.

Because of the reduced development density, this alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative among the three alternatives that would involve project construction.

GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would retain the acreage of the proposed project (199.7) but the site would have a different mix of residential units based on the Salinas General Plan policy 3.3.K. There would be a total of 987 units built with this alternative, about 16 percent more than under the proposed project. Those units would include 545 single-family, 99 medium-density, and 461 high-density multi-family units, including 118 affordable multi-family units. Based on 3.2 persons per unit, population would be about 3,158 (compared to about 2,730 with the project). Park and school site acreage would be the same as the project.

The General Plan alternative would generate a total of about 9,077 daily trips, including ahout 950 weekday p.m. peak-hour trips (vs. about 9,495 daily about 945 p.m. peak-hour trips with the project). Intersection levels of service resulting from traffic generated by this alternative generally would be the same as with the project, as would freeway levels of service. Traffic generated by this altemati ve would cause incremental increases in delay at other intersectio,ns, compared to the project. Air quality effects due to project operation would be less than significant, in contrast to the project. · a:s with the prejeet. Cumulative traffic noise effects along Williams Road would be significant and unavoidable, as with the project.

This alternative would remove approximately 199.7 acres of agricultural land from production and convert it to urban use. This would be a significant, unavoidable effect, as with the project.

Impacts related to water consumption and groundwater pumping would be greater than with the project because of the greater population. Water consumption would be greater than with the proposed project, but still about 25 percent less than at present, and this impact would be less than significant, as with the project. Air quality impacts would be somewhat more severe than 2-5

2.0 Summary
with the project, due to the increase in vehicle trips, but would be less than significant. Demand for public services and utilities would be somewhat greater than under the project; effects on the school districts that would serve the site would be greater than the proposed project.

The General Plan Alternative was chosen for analysis to show the potential impacts of a plan that would be more consistent with existing City land use policies and designations. The net effects from General Plan Alternative buildout would be greater than the proposed project. 2-6
TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

4.1 Land Use. Plans and Polices, and Zonin&:

4.1.1: Implementation of the proposed project would alter the existing on-site land uses. The project would convert 199.7 acres of prime agricultural land to urban residential use. [4.1-21]

4.1.2: Combined with the Williams Ranch project north of Williams Road and other projects in the Salinas vicinity, the cumulative impact on agricultural lands would be a reduction in farmland availability. [4.1-22]

4.2 Traffic and Circulation

4.2.1: The project, along with cumulative development,
would result in a deterioration in the level of service for minor street movements at unsignalized intersections in the project vicinity.

4.2.1a: U.S. 101 NB Ramps I Sanborn Road. The proposed
project would cause the minor street tum movement at the unsignalized intersection of Sanborn Road and U.S. 101
Northbound Ramps, currently operating at LOS F, to
experience increased delays in the future, during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Cumulative plus project-generated traffic would further increase delays. [4.2-12]
[4.1-22]- Page in text where impact appears.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.1.1 None available.

4.1.2 None available.

4.2.1a ..slgnalization would avoid this impact; however, no funding is available, and the project
contribution would not be substantial enough to
require the project sponsor to install a signaL
2-7
--v
L-1-..p-/
~;~1)
IL Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Unavoidable significant impact
Unavoidable significant cumulative impact
Unavoidable significant cumulative impact
TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) A. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

4.2.1b: Williams Road I East Laurel Drive. The proposed project would cause the minor street turn movement at the unsignalized intersection of Williams Road and East Laurel Drive, currently operating at LOS F, to experience increased delays in the future, during the weekday p.m. peak hour.

Cumulative plus project-generated traffic would further increase delays. [4.2-14]

4.2.1c: Williams Road I Garner A venue. The proposed
project would cause the minor street turn movement at the unsignalized intersection of Williams Road and Garner
A venue, currently operating at LOS F, to experience increased delays in the future, during the weekday p.m. peak hour.

Cumulative plus project-generated traffic would further increase delays. [4.2-16]

4.2.3: Sanborn Road I Alisal Street. The proposed project would cause the intersection of North Sanborn Road and East Alisal Street to degrade incrementally from LOS A (v/c =

0.53) at present to LOS A (v/c = 0.58) with traffic from the proposed project, during the weekday p.m. peak hour.

Project-generated traffic would not cause any change in the level of service. With traffic from cumulative development, the intersection would degrade to LOS E
(v/c = 0.92).(Cumulative impact, Less-than-significant project impact) [ 4.2-18]
--- [4.1--''l">J- Page ;n_•~vt whe~~ :-"aCt a~~~'>r•;.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.2.lb Signalization would avoid this impact; however,
no funding is available, and the project
contribution would not be substantial enough to
require the project sponsor to install a signaL

4.2.1c Signalization would avoid this impact; however,
no funding is available, and the project
contribution would not be substantial enough to
require the project sponsor to install a signal.

4.2.3 No mitigation is required for the project impact.

Mitigation of the cumulative impact could be
achieved by providing a second eastbound left
turn lane from East Alisal Street onto northbound
North Sanborn Road unless additional study does
not confirm the need for the additional turn lane.

No funding is available for this mitigation
measure.
'LQ_
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Unavoidable significant cumulative impact
Unavoidable significant cumulative impact
Less-than-significant project impact;
Unavoidable significant cumulative impact
TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued)

A SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

4.2.5b: If Del Monte A venue were not used as an access route between Williams Road and the proposed project,
project-generated traffic would increase the daily weekday traffic volumes on Countryside Drive, and possibly Argentine Drive, beyond the threshold for local residential collector streets of 3,000 vehicles per day. [4.2-24]

4.5 Air Quality

4.5.1: Construction activities would temporarily generate criteria air pollutants, particularly PM-10, over the expected six-year construction period. [4.5-9]
[4.1-22]- Page in text where impact appears.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.2.5b Implementation of traffic calming measures such
as those identified in Measure 4.2.5a ~
would reduce traffic volumes on Countryside
Drive and, potentially, Argentine Drive.

However, it is unlikely that volumes on
Countryside Drive would be reduced below the
3,000-vehicles-per-day threshold.

4.5.1a The project sponsor shall require site preparation and home building contractors to implement a
dust control program during construction to
reduce the contribution of project construction to
local PM-10 concentrations, including watering
active sites at least twice daily and more often
when winds exceed 15 mph; prohibiting grading
during high winds; paving interior roads as soon
as practicable; enforcing a 15-mph speed limit on
unpaved surfaces; replacing ground cover in
disturbed areas as quickly as possible; enclosing,
covering or otherwise reducing dust from
exposed stock piles and inactive construction
areas; sweeping streets daily if soils are carried
off the site; covering haul trucks or maintaining
two feet of freeboard; sweeping spilled dirt or
debris; installing wheel washers for exiting
trucks; posting the MBUAPCD telephone
complaint number; designating person(s) to
oversee dust control; and maintaining and
operating construction equipment so as to
minimize particulates from exhaust.
2-9
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Unavoidable significant impact
Unavoidable significant impact
TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) A. SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE IMP ACTS

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

4.7 Noise

4.7.2: Project-generated vehicular traffic would result in an increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways used to access the site. (Cumulative impact) [4.7-8]
__ [4.1-2~1- J>age intext wher~jmnact apnears.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.7.2 No mitigation is available for increased traffic
noise levels along already developed portions of
Williams Road.
2-10
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
This would be a significant, unavoidable
cumulative effect; however, the project's
contribution to this effect would be
incremental (maximum of two decibels at
Williams east and west of Del Monte).

TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) B. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Polices, and Zonin"

4.1.3: The proposed project could be inconsistent with the surrounding agricultural land uses and could generate
nuisance complaints by residents due to agricultural noise and dust. [4.1-23]

4.2 Traffic and Circulation

4.2.1: The project, along with cumulative development,
would result in a deterioration in the level of service for minor street movements at unsignalized intersections in the project vicinity.

4.2.ld: The project, along with cumulative development, would result in a deterioration in the level of service for minor street movements at unsignalized intersections in the project vicinity. [4.2-17]
[4.1-22]- Page in text where impact appears.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.1.3a The Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street
rights-of-way (approximately 110 feet each) shall
be removed from agricultural production by the
project sponsor prior to initiation of grading or
construction activities.

4.1.3b The proposed agricultural use disclosure notice
shall be provided to prospective home site
purchasers prior to closing of home purchase;
and shall include buyer(s) signature. Form and
content of said notice shall be subject to approval
by the Community Development Department
prior to approval of the first final subdivision
map, and each said notice shall be recorded. In
addition, a notice shall be recorded for the entire
project site.

4.2.1d No TFO project is planned for the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Terven Avenue. However,
the City has secured funding for the installation
of a traffic signal at this intersection, and also at
the Airport- De La Torre intersection. Those
projects are designed and currently under
construction. These signals are expected to be
completed by summer of 1998.
2-11
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Less-than-significant.

Less-than-significant.

TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) B. SIGNIFICANT IMP ACTS MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

4.2.2: Williams Road I Boulevard A.. Project-generated
traffic would result in an unacceptable level of service (LOS F in the p.m. peak hour) for the minor street turn movement at the future unsignalized intersection of Williams Road and Boulevard A, constructed as part of the project. [ 4.2-17]

4.2.6: Project-generated transit ridership, along with project and cumulative traffic on Williams Road, could impede transit service on Williams Road. [4.2-25]

4.3 Public Services and Utilities

4.3.3: The proposed project would increase the demand for, and frequency of, fire protection services and emergency responses to the project site. [4.3-9]

4.3.7: The proposed project would increase the flow of
wastewater discharged into the sewage system. [4.3-13]

4.3.8: The proposed project would increase discharge to the City's storm drainage system. [4.3-14]
[ 4.1-_7?1 ~-Page in tP.lft wher~ '"'"'act ar')P<>J:.<:.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.2.2 No TFO project is planned for the intersection of Williams Road and Boulevard A. The project
sponsor shall install a traffic signal at the
intersection prior to issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy.

4.2.6 The project sponsor shall construct a bus turnout on the project's Williams Road frontage to meet
the requirements of Monterey-Salinas Transit.

4.3.3 Construction of Fire Station No. 5 shall be
completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for any unit in Phase 4 or above.

4.3.7 Prior to the issuance of building permits,
construction of a relief main in East Alisal Street
shall be completed.

4.3.8a Prior to the issuance of the first grading or
building permits, the project sponsor shall install
a temporary (interim) storm water
siltation/detention basin. Design shall be subject
to City approval and shall permit discharge of a
10-year pre-development storm. Discharge from
the basin shall be at a rate that will preclude any
increase in the existing rate of runoff from the
site (20.38 cubic feet per second).
7-1?
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Less-than-significant.

Less-than-significant.

TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) B. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

4.4 Hydrolo~y. Draina~e and Water Quality

4.4.2: Increased water runoff resulting from the proposed project would cause localized flooding in the project vicinity and/or flooding in downstream areas. [4.4-13]

4.4.3: Degradation of surface water and groundwater quality may be caused by storm water runoff from the proposed
project during and after construction. [ 4.4-14]
[ 4.1-22] - Page in text where impact appears.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.3.8b Prior to the issuance of building permits for
dwelling construction for units in Phase 3 or
beyond, the project sponsor shall install the
permanent storm water siltation/detention basin
(capacity of 3.5 acre-feet). Discharge from the
basin shall be at a rate that will preclude any
increase in the existing rate of runoff from the
site (20.83 cubic feet per second). Storm water
discharged from the detention basin shall be
reduced to compensate for runoff from northern
portions of the project site that would not be
captured by the detention basin.

4.4.2 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3.8a
and 4.3.8b, along with construction of storm
water detention facilities proposed as part of the
project, would reduce the potential impacts from
flooding to a level of less than significance.

4.4.3a The project sponsor shall obtain and comply with a NPDES General Construction Stormwater
Permit issued by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), Central Coast Region.
(Required by law)

4.4.3b The project sponsor shall comply with all NPDES
requirements in effect at the time of project
construction. (Required by law)
2-13
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Less-than-significant.

Less-than-significant.

TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) B. SIGNIFICANT IMP ACTS MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

4.4.4: The existing plume of nitrate contamination in the groundwater basin may be dispersed or otherwise impacted by the proposed project. [4.4-15]

4.4.5: Abandoned agricultural wells on the project site could serve as a conduit to introduce pollutants into the groundwater basin. Storm water or irrigation runoff could enter an
improperly abandoned well and contaminate the aquifer.
[4.4-16]
[4. t:22L- Pagejn text where impact annl"ars.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.4.3c The project sponsor shall ensure that the
contractor installs storm drain sediment traps in
the project vicinity as part of the installation of
storm drainage facilities. (Required by law)

4.4.4a New wells installed io serve the proposed project shall be constructed b:y the projeet sponsor to
withdraw water from levels below existing nitrate
contamination.

4.4.4b New well sites installed to serve the proposed
project shall be eoHstrueted provided by the
project sponsor to shall meet the minimum lot
size requirements set by Alco Water Service.

4.4.4c Prior to the start of construction, the project
sponsor shall provide a monitoring well on the
project site to the satisfaction of the County
Water Resources Agency and the County
Department of Health.

4.4.5 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for dwelling units on the project site, the project
sponsor shall abandon unused agricultural well(s)
in accordance with state and county standards, or
convert the unused well(s) into monitoring wells,
at the discretion of the County Water Resources
Agency.
?-14
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Less-than-significant.

Less-than-significant.

TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) B. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

4.5 Air Quality
Note: Impact 4.5.2 has been revised from that in the DEIR and is now determined to be less than significant.
[4.1-22]- Page in text where impact appears.

MITIGATION MEASURES
2-15
IL Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) B. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

4.7 Noise

4.7.1: Grading and construction activities in the project area would intermittently and temporarily generate noise levels above ambient background levels. [4.7-7]

4.8 Flora and Fauna

4.8.1: Development of the proposed project could result in potentially adverse impacts on nesting and foraging habitat of the burrowing owl and, potentially, individuals of this species. [4.8-4]

4.9 Historic and Archaeolo&ical

4.9.1: Construction of the project could disturb previously undiscovered subsurface prehistoric cultural resources. [4.9-2]
[ 4.1 ~221 ::_Page in text where irnnact apnears.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.7.1a Construction equipment noise shall be minimized
during project construction by muffling and
shielding intakes and exhaust on construction
equipment (per the manufacturers' specifications)
and by shrouding or shielding impact tools.

4.7.1b The project sponsor shall coordinate with
administrators of the three nearby schools to
develop a construction schedule that would
minimize the potential for interference with
school functions and activities.

4.8.1 The project sponsor shall ensure that
preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls are
conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance
with California Department of Fish and Game
CCDFG) survey protocol 30 days prior to the start
of each phase of project deyelopment Survey
results shall be submitted to the CDFG.

4.9.1 The project sponsor shall ensure that in the event that unknown prehistoric cultural resources are
discovered during subsurface construction, land
alteration work in the general vicinity of the find
is halted and a qualified archaeologist is
consulted immediately.
?-Jo
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Less-than-significant.

Less-than-significant.

TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
IMPACT

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Polices, and Zonin&

4.1.4: The proposed project would expose residents and
occupants of project facilities to a negligible level of risk associated with possible aircraft accidents at Salinas
Municipal Airport. [4.1-23]

4.2 Traffic and Circulation

4.2.4: Project-generated traffic would increase U.S. 101 freeway volumes in the peak direction, in the segment north of North Sanborn Road, by less than one percent during the p.m. peak hour, and would not result in any change in level of service or substantial increases in delay or congestion.

Cumulative traffic would result in a degradation to LOSE, but the project contribution would not be substantial. [4.2-21 -±9]

4.2.5a: Project-generated traffic would increase the daily weekday traffic volumes on Countryside Drive, Argentine Drive and Del Monte Avenue as follows:

Countryside Drive, from about 1,000 to about 2,800 daily vehicle trips.

Argentine Drive, from about 1,000 to about 2,200 daily
vehicle trips.

Del Monte Avenue, from about 1,000 to about 2,200
daily vehicle trips. [4.2-23~]
[4.1-22]- Page in text where impact appears.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.1.4 None required.

4.2.4 No project mitigation is required. Mitigation of
cumulative impacts could be achieved through
addition of a lane to the freeway. However, the
project contribution to freeway would be
negligible.

4.2.5~ None required. However, to reduce further local
traffic impacts of the proposed project, the Eity
eettld reqttire that the project sponsor would
incorporate neighborhood traffic safety measures
into the design of the proposed project.
2-17
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Less-than-significant.

Less-than-significant
Less-than-significant
TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
IMPACT

4.2. 7: Construction traffic could access the Mountain Valley site via Del Monte Avenue, Argentine Drive and Countryside Drive. The additional trucks, delivery vehicles and other construction related trips will add vehicles to local residential collector roadways throughout the construction phases.
[4.2-26]

4.3 Public Services and Utilities

4.3.1: The proposed project would generate an additional emollment of about 512 new students in the Alisal Union Elementary School District and about 235 new students in the Salinas Union High School District. [4.3-6]

4.3.2: The proposed project would increase the demand for police services. This would be a less-than-significant impact. [4.3-9]

4.3.4: The proposed project would result in additional
demand for library services. [4.3-10]

4.3.5: The proposed project would increase demand on the City's parks and recreation facilities. [4.3-11]
[4.1-2/.1 ~_Page in text where imnact apne:ar~.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.2.7 No mitigation is required. However, to avoid
disruption of local traffic during construction, the
City could prohibit access via Del Monte,
Argentine, and Countryside. Prior to the start of
grading or construction, acceptable access (as
determined by the City Public Works
Department) could be required to be provided via
Williams Road and/or Alisal Street extension. In
addition, the project sponsor could be required to
prepare, before the start of construction, a
construction mitigation plan detailing proposed
truck circulation, volume, staging locations, and
other information to minimize disruptions to
traffic and transit caused by construction traffic
and other activity.

4.3.1 None required.

4.3.2 None required.

4.3.4 None required.

4.3.5 None required.
?-1 R
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Less-than-significant
Less than significant.

Less-than-significant.

TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
IMPACT

4.3.6: The proposed project would create new water demand for Alco Water Service. [4.3-11]

4.3.9: The proposed project would increase demand for solid waste disposal facilities. This would be a less than significant impact. [4.3-16]

4.3.10: The proposed project would increase demand for gas and electric and telephone facilities. [4.3-16]

4.4 Hydroloey. Drainaee and Water Quality

4.4.1: The project would result in a decrease in on-site water consumption of about 34 percent. [ 4.4-8]
[4.1-22]- Page in text where impact appears.

4.3.6 MITIGATION MEASURES
None required. However, as part of the Tentative
Map process, the City would require that the
project applicant provide the proposed four well
sites of sufficient size to meet Alco Water Service
specifications. The project sponsor would be
ultimately responsible for construction of the
wells to ensure adequate water service is
available to the project site.

4.3.9 None required.

4.3.10 None required.

Because the project would result in a decrease in water consumption on the project site, this impact was determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Because groundwater overdrafting will continue to be a
concern in the Salinas Valley, particularly as more
residential development increases the more "permanent"
commitment of water to dwellings, the following measures are identified to further reduce the project's less-thansignificant impact on groundwater consumption. 2-19
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Less-than-significant.

Less-than-significant.

Less-than-significant
TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMP ACTS
IMPACT

4.5 Air Quality

4.5.2: Criteria air pollutants generated by the proposed project would increase total air pollutant emissions in the region. [ 4.5-13]
r4.l-2'H 0 age ir-•~vtwhert" :---ct apr---o_

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.4.1a Water conservation could occur at the project site through increased xeriscaping in landscaped
areas in addition to that proposed in the Mountain
Valley Precise Plan.

4.4.lb Water conservation could occur at the project site through retiring agricultural land from crop
production on the entire project site prior to the
start of construction.

4.4.1c The City could encourage retrofitting plumbing
fixtures such as toilets and shower heads in
existing urban areas that draw water from the
East Side Area sub-basin.

4.5.2a None required. However, the following measures
are recommended to minimize the long-term
increase in criteria air pollutant emissions from
the project. The project sponsor shall could
ensure that all homes designed to accommodate
wood burning include EPA-certified wood stoves
and/or fireplace inserts.
2-'JO
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Less-than-significant.

TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

C LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
IMPACT

4.5.3: Project-related traffic would raise ambient carbon monoxide concentrations along access roadways and
intersections. [ 4.5-16]

4.5.4: The project, along with regional growth and
development, would have a cumulative air quality impact. [4.5-17]
[4.1-22]- Page in text where impact appears.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.5.2b The following additional measures are identified to reduce the emissions associated with home
energy use, since the vehicle trip reduction plan
would not be expected to reduce the net increase
in project-related HC emissions to less than

4.5.3 4.5.4
150 pounds per day, the MBUAPCD significance
criterion. The project sponsor shftH could
• provide information on solar space heating, hot
water systems, and pool heating to buyers;
• require that home builders installlow-NOx
space heaters and water heaters;
• require that home designs exploit solar energy
to the extent feasible;
• require home builders to provide exterior
electrical outlets for electric garden tools; and
• require home builders, as feasible, to install the
most energy-efficient appliances available.

None required.

None required.
2-20a
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Less-than-significant.

Less-than-significant.

TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
IMPACT

4.6 Soils Contamination

4.6: There is no indication that the soils proposed to be disturbed for project development are contaminated with hazardous materials or wastes. There is no foreseeable risk to people, or to animal or plant populations, on the project site or in the vicinity. [4.6-3]

4.7 Noise

4.7.3: The project would introduce a noise-sensitive use to an area that would experience substantial traffic noise and that lies within the vicinity of an Airport. [4.7-11]
_ [4.1-221- P~ge intext where imJ>act appears._

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.6 None required.

4.7.3 None required.
2-21
II. Summary

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Less-than-significant.

Less-than-significant.

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 PROJECT SPONSOR'S OBJECTIVES
The proponent of the Mountain Valley Project is the Sconberg Ranch Partnership. The objective of the proponent is to develop an area of single-family affordable housing units in the predominantly renter-occupied area of east Salinas. According to the project sponsor, in 1995 nearly 60 percent of the approximately 10,500 units surveyed in east Salinas were renteroccupied, and more than 45 percent were attached units (apartments, duplexes, etc.). The proposed project would help reduce the population density in east Salinas while providing increased opportunities for home ownership along with amenities such as a community park, a new elementary school site, and an expansion area for the existing Bardin Elementary School.

In order to create a four-way intersection at the project's easternmost perimeter, the sponsor seeks to include as part of the project site approximately 40 acres outside the Salinas Sphere of Influence. This would allow for an extension of the existing Freedom Parkway across Williams Road and along the project's eastern boundary.

The sponsor seeks to develop a project that would respond to various policies in the Salinas General Plan by directing growth away from the most productive agricultural land (Policies 3.l.A and 3.3.A) and by siting the project adjacent to existing urban development (Policy 3.1.I); by constructing single-family dwellings in an area with a large concentration of apartments (Policy 3.3.N); by constructing dwelling units at a lower density than the maximum currently provided for in the General Plan and thus resulting in projected water savings (Policies 7.l.A, B, and E); and by providing for detention of surface water runoff (Policy 8.2.A).

Those and other General Plan policies are discussed in Section 4.1 of this EIR, Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning, and in the appropriate subject sections in Chapter 4.0.

The sponsor further seeks to develop a project that responds to various policies enacted by the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which must approve the annexation of the project site and the proposed change in the City of Salinas Sphere of Influence.

LAFCO is charged by state law with encouraging orderly growth and development patterns, guiding development away from open space and prime agricultural land unless it would promote 3-1

3.0 Project Description
orderly development, and ensuring that adequate public services are provided. The site is largely within the City's Sphere of Influence and Urban Transition Area, meaning 160 acres of the site is designated by LAFCO for eventual urban development. The site is prime agricultural land, although not the best agricultural land in the Salinas area. The site would also receive adequate public services (see Section 4.3). (See Section 4.1 for a more complete discussion of the project's relationship to LAFCO standards.)

3.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The approximately 200-acre project site is located in unincorporated Monterey County, immediately adjacent to the City of Salinas. The site is approximately the western half of what is known as the Sconberg Ranch; the entire ranch totals about 460 acres. The site is contiguous on its western and northern boundaries with the Salinas city limits. 1 It is bordered on the north by Williams Road and, across Williams Road, by Alisal Community School and Alisal High School and single-family residential development.2 To the west, also within the city limits, is Bardin Elementary School and residential development, including apartments and single-family dwellings. Agricultural fields exist south and east of the site, on unincorporated county land.

The project site itself is currently used for agricultural production. Figure 1 shows the project location.

3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The project would include:
• An amendment to the Salinas General Plan land use diagram to reflect predominantly residential medium-density with some residential low-density as well as public/semipublic and park land uses on the site. The current General Plan land use diagram shows predominantly residential low-density with some residential medium-density, some residential high-density, and park land uses;
• Adoption of a Precise Plan;
• Pre-zoning of the site consistent with the Precise Plan; Because of the orientation of surrounding streets, the project site is rotated approximately 40 degrees from true north. For purposes of this report, Williams Road is considered an east-west street and Bardin Road, a north-south street. Williams Road thus forms the northern project boundary. 2 Development of about 2, 100 residential units and about 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial and office space on the property north of the project site is currently under way. The development was analyzed in the Supplemental EIR for the Williams Ranch Planned Community Precise Plan, Final SEIR published by the City of Salinas, January 1993.
3-2
S ~O;U~R;;-;C:_;-;E~:-;D~K;;S;-:A;-:s-=:so=ct;::-.at;::-es::---------------------------------Mounlain Valley I 960352 • Figure 1
Project Area I Regional Location
3-3

3.0 Project Description
• An amendment to the City of Salinas Sphere of Influence to enlarge the Sphere by approximately 36 acres (to be approved by the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO));
• Reorganization involving 199.7 acres of land including annexation to the City of Salinas, attachment to the Monterey Regional County Sanitation District - Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, and detachment from the Salinas Rural Fire Protection District and the Monterey County Resource Conservation District; • Subdivision approval, public facilities assessments intended to provide infrastructure improvements, donation in fee title of parklands and an elementary school site, and related actions intended to implement the proposed project; and • The City and the project sponsor also may enter into a development agreement, a binding contract governing certain aspects of the project.

The approximately 36 acres of the project site outside the City of Salinas' Sphere of Influence, as designated by LAFCO, includes two proposed roadways that would border the site on the east and south, Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street. Other proposed improvements outside the current Sphere of Influence includes single-family residential lots, a portion of a community park, one of four proposed on-site water well lots, and a portion of an elementary school.

The Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street roadway rights-of-ways would serve as a buffer area between the proposed residential uses and existing agricultural uses to the east and south.

All arterial routes surrounding the project site's boundary would contain a landscape buffer, a sound wall to reduce traffic noise, a bike lane, and a pedestrian path.

The proposed Precise Plan calls for development of 853 single-family dwelling units and one community park. The single-family dwellings would be constructed in six neighborhoods built around an internal roadway network. The average gross density of single-family units would be

5.6 units per gross acre. The project includes 661lots ranging in size from 4,000 to 4,500 square feet, including 102lots (at 4,000 square feet) to be sold as inclusionary housing units. A total of 192 lots would be included at a lot size of 6,500 square feet to be sold at the market rate. The project also would include donation in fee title of a community park of 21.5 acres and donation in fee title of a 9-acre school site to the Alisal Union Elementary School District. The sponsor would also sell two additional acres to the District for expansion of the existing Bardin Elementary School site, adjacent to the southwest comer of the project site. Pursuant to an agreement between the project sponsor and the Alisal Union Elementary and Salinas Union High School Districts, the project sponsor has agreed to pay $639,000 to the high school district, in addition to the state-authorized school fee of $1.84 per square foot of residential construction. 3-4

3.0 Project Description
Park improvements consisting of lawn and irrigation would be installed as part of the project.

The remaining park improvements would be the responsibility of the City. Semipublic lands are proposed for dedication, including 1.7 acres for a stormwater detention basin and three 20,000 square foot sites and one 10,000 square foot site for water well lots. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2. Project characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Access to the project site would be from Williams Road, the proposed Freedom Parkway (south of Williams Road), and the proposed East Alisal Street (east of Bardin Road). Access also would be available via three existing streets, Countryside Drive, Argentine Drive and Del Monte A venue, from the west and northwest. Williams Road would be widened adjacent to the project site. In addition to connections between the project site and the surrounding roadways, a series of internal streets would be constructed. The streets would extend Countryside Drive, Argentine Drive, and Del Monte Avenue onto the site and would link those three streets with the proposed Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street extensions along the east and south sides of the site.

The project sponsor would be responsible for agreements with local utilities to provide gas and electric and telephone service. In accordance with requirements of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, storm water siltation/detention would be provided as part of the project. The proposed storm water siltation/detention basin would be a rectangular 1. 7 -acre site in the southwest comer of the project site, adjacent to Bardin School. It would be connected to a storm drain network that would be constructed by the sponsor. A sanitary sewer system also would be built, and would be linked to the Salinas Municipal wastewater system. At a projected

3.2 persons per unit (based on the 1990 census), the proposed project would have a buildout population of about 2,730 persons.
3-5
(JtNN15
PROP05EO
5HOPPIN4
CeNTeR
I
EUME.NTARY
SCHOOL

9.0 AC.: QR055
I
I
I
co~~ITY
2 1. 5 AC. I QR055
(20 ac~ Net)
w
a=:
::>
~ ::>
(,.)
a=:
0 I~ <
I 0
a
:::=~~1 ~ I
I
~ I ~~ I
I
'1~~~~~~~~~ oTORM WAT'f.R oe.Te.NTIO~ ..•. / EA5T AU5AL 5TRE.E.T E:XTE.N5ION e.AO!N - 1.70 ACRe.5 AGRIC!JLTURE
0 600
Feet
• • • • • • • • • • Salinas Sphere of lnflunce
(Urban Transition Area)
---- Project Boundary
-----------------------------------Mountain Val/ey/960352 • SOURCE: EMC Planning Group, H. D. Peters Figure 2 Project Site Plan
3-6

3.0 ProjectDescription
TABLE 1: PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Number of
Land Use Gross Acreage Units
Residential
Single-Family Residential 151.1 853
Major Streets
East Alisal Street, Freedom Parkway, and Williams 12.8
Road Rights-of-way and landscape buffers
Subtotal 163.9 853
Public and Semipublic
Community Park Site 21.5
New Elementary School 9.0
Expansion of Bardin School 2.0
Storm Water Detention Basin 1.7
Well Lots
Bardin Elementary School Expansion site 0.5
Boulevard "B" and Freedom Parkway 0.5
Williams Road 0.5
Attach the existing well lot on Surrey Way 0.2
(10,000 square feet)
Subtotal 35.8
TOTAL 199.7 853
Numbers may not add due to rounding.

SOURCE: EMC Planning Group, February 1998.

3.4 PROJECT SCHEDULE
Development of the proposed project includes six phases that would occur over approximately six years. Water, sewer, and storm drainage networks would be constructed as needed to serve the project. The 1. 7 -acre siltation/detention basin would be constructed as part of Phase 3 of the project, to coincide with drainage infrastructure installations; a temporary detention basin would be constructed prior to commencement of grading to detain runoff from the Phase 1 and 2 3-7

3.0 Project Description
portions of the property. The timetable for development of inclusionary units would be expected to coincide with construction of market-rate housing (as required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance), with 80 percent of the inclusionary units to be built as part of the first three project phases. Donation of land for the community park and the elementary school site would occur concurrent with approval of the final subdivision map. Construction of the community park would be completed in two phases. Basic site improvements (lawn and irrigation) would be completed as part of the project. Approximately 10 acres would be improved in Phase 2 of the project, and the remaining acreage would be completed in Phase 4. Figure 3 depicts proposed phasing of project development.

Roadways would be built as needed to serve phased project traffic needs: the Precise Plan shows that Phase 1, when construction would occur on the northern portion of the site, would include construction of extensions of Countryside Drive and Del Monte Boulevard, a new Boulevard "A," to intersect with Williams Road, and the northern half of Mountain Valley Boulevard, which ultimately would extend from southwest to northeast across most of the site (see Figure 3). Half the width of the Freedom Parkway (full width to Mountain Valley Boulevard) and East Alisal. Street extension right-of-ways would be built to serve the development, including a two lane road with landscaping, pathways, and a bike lane. Freedom Parkway would be constructed as part of Phases 2, 4, and 6, and East Alisal Street, as part of Phases~ .J. and 6, as development proceeded towards the southeastern comer of the site. The extension of Argentine Drive and the southern half of Mountain Valley Boulevard would be included in Phase 3, and the remaining internal roadways would be constructed in Phases 4 and 5. Full-width development of the Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street right-of-way widths would not occur unless further development were to occur to the east and/or south.

3.5 APPROVALS REOillRED
The City Council would have to certify this environmental impact report prior to approving any action on the project. The Council must then approve an amendment to the Salinas General Plan land use map to allow predominately medium-density homes (see Section 4.1, Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning). The General Plan also requires the adoption of a Precise Plan.

Requirements of a Precise Plan are to ensure orderly residential development of the site and comprehensive development decisions, rather than addressing development activities on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Objectives of the Precise Plan are to include detail concerning implementation measures and regulations, programs, public works projects, financing measures, text and maps that specify land uses. The Council must also approve pre-zoning of the site to the 3-8
0 PUBLIC

LIBRARY
PI<OP:J5f.O
5HOPPINCi
Ce.NTe.R
600
Feet
SOURCE: H.D. Peters Co.: EMC Planning Group Inc.
0:::
0 :I:' <(
0 a
UJ
UJ
fC
EAST AUSAL STJ:~e.e.T tXTtNS!ON

AGRICULTURE
----
·-------
CD
3-9
Project Boundary
Phasing Boundary
Phase
I I
l':\::',:.::',:.::',:.::',:.::':1
t\\ \\\\\"1
Phase One
Phase Two
Phase Three
Phase Four
~ PhaseFive
f:~::~::~::~~::::~::m::::::j Phase Six
Mountain Valley I 960352 •
Figure 3
Phasing Plan

3.0 Project Description
appropriate residential zoning district(s) (RM-4.0, medium-density residential, and RM-6.5, medium-density residential).3 The proposed siltation/detention basin, well sites, and school property would be zoned PS (Public and Semipublic). The entire site would also be designated with a Precise Plan Overlay.

The project would require annexation to the City of Salinas for the entire site; this annexation would have to be approved by the City Council and by the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Immediately prior to the annexation approval, LAFCO would have to approve the addition of about 36 acres of the site to the City's Sphere of Influence. Those portions of the site already within the Sphere of Influence must be redesignated by LAFCO from Urban Transition Area to Urban Service Area. LAFCO would consider the EIR and an accompanying Plan for Providing and Financing Services and the Precise Plan in its decision-making. As part of the annexation process, the City and Monterey County must prepare a property-tax transfer agreement. Attachment to the Monterey Regional County Sanitation District- Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and detachment from the Salinas Rural Fire Protection District and the Monterey County Resource Conservation District would also require LAFCO approval.

Once the reorganization process is complete, the City would have to approve tentative and final subdivision maps and benefit assessment district(s). The City must issue building permits prior to any construction on the project site.
3 Pre-zoning may be to a temporary A (Agriculture) district, with subsequent rezoning to residential district(s) consistent with the tentative subdivision map at the time the map is filed. 3-10

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.1 LAND USE, PLANS AND POLICIES, AND ZONING

SETTING
Land Use
Salinas, with a population of approximately 123,.3_00 residents, is an agricultural, service and administrative center in northern Monterey County located nine miles east of Monterey Bay, 13 miles northeast of the City of Monterey, and about two miles west of the Gabilan Mountain Range. Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties are located to the north, and San Benito County to the east. Salinas is the Monterey County seat and is the county's government and commercial center. The former Fort Ord Military Reservation, closed in 1993 and now the location of California State University, Monterey Bay (and other uses) is southwest; between Monterey and Salinas.

Land uses in Salinas include a concentration of retail uses, along with City and Monterey County government offices, in Oldtown Salinas and additional retail uses in shopping malls and centers along North Main Street, South Main Street, and on the west side of U.S. 101. Salinas is surrounded by prime agricultural land, 1 with the best soils and higher land values to the south and west. Recent residential growth has taken place in the northeast, where the land has moderate or significant limitations to productivity and, therefore, agricultural rents are lower (City of Salinas, 1988a). Industrial uses, including agricultural packing plants, are located along U.S. 101 in the southern portions of the City. There are large residential areas in the south, north and east parts of Salinas.

The project site (portions of Assessor's Parcels 153-011-035 and 153-011-021) is unincorporated land located adjacent to the eastern city limits, on prime agricultural land. The site is outside of and adjacent to the City's eastern limits in an area designated as a Conditional Growth Area, mostly within the City's Sphere of Influence, and about 3.25 miles east of downtown (Figure 1).

Under the state's soil classification system, Prime Farmlands are the most important agricultural soils. Also listed as "important" farmlands are Farmlands of Statewide Importance, Farmlands of Local Importance, and Unique Farmlands.

4.1-1

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
Land uses surrounding the project site include an existing single-family residential neighborhood and an existing multi-family housing development; these two residential areas form the western project boundary, along with Bardin Elementary School, at the southwest comer of the project site on Alisal Road. Alisal High School and Alisal Community School are to the north and northwest, respectively, across Williams Road.2 The Cesar Chavez branch of the Salinas Public Library is northwest of the site. The Salinas Municipal Airport and Hartnell College East Campus are one-half mile southwest of the site, across Alisal Road. North of the project site, across Williams Road, is the partially completed 466-acre Williams Ranch Planned Community that is to include mixed-density residential development, with schools, parks, a community center, a fire station, and commercial uses. Agricultural uses are located to the south and east of the project site. Existing land uses near the site are shown on Figure 4.

Current Agricultural Uses
The project site is currently farmed by Allen W. Johnson as Ranch No. 10, or "Jack's Ranch." Soil on the project site is suitable for a variety of crops. In previous years, broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, lettuce, beans, strawberries, sugar beets, and bok choy were planted on the project site.

Broccoli is one of Monterey County's highest dollar volume crops, although water supply and temperature fluctuations make its production problematic. Head lettuce and strawberries are also among the highest economic value crops in Monterey County (Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner, 1996). In 1996 and 1997 strawberries were grown on the site.

Soils are grouped by capability classes according to their limitations when used for field crops, the risk of damage when used, and the manner in which they respond to treatment. Class I soils have few limitations that restrict their use, while Class VIII soils and land forms have limitations that nearly preclude commercial agricultural use. Most of the soils of the proposed project site are classified as Class I Chualar loam (with a zero to two percent slope [CbA I(14)\0-2%] and are representative of those found on alluvial fan terraces, flood plains and river benches) and Class III in small areas of the site. Within each Roman numeral soil class, Arabic-numbered capability units further describe soil characteristics. Project site soils are in Capability Unit 1(14), a well-drained soil that formed in mixed alluvium. Soils in this classification are suited to and used for all adapted crops in Monterey County, and have few limitations when 2 Because of the orientation of surrounding streets, the project site is rotated approximately 40 degrees from true - north. For purposes of this report, Williams Road is considered an east-west street and Bardin Road, a north-south street. Williams Road thus forms the northern project boundary.

4.1-2
5Tiiili''1
~.~\ ~
"''•:

PUBLIC

LIBRARY
PROP:J5eo
5HOPPINC.

CUlT eli!

COMMUNITY
PARr:

21.5 AC. ~ROSS
(20 ac. Netl
I
I
I

SALINAS

MUNICIPAL I
AIRPORT ;<> I
(1/2MILE) ~ ---·.-----------------;;;;;;,;;..,.a
)
5TORM WATeR OeTf!NTION . ./ EAST AU5AL 5W~E.E.T t:XTE.N5!0N BASIN - 1.70 ACRt5 ... AGRICULTURE
\ I
\i~ .~
·~
I~ I
I
r
0 a
UJ
UJ
fC
---- Project Boundary
0 600
Feet
w
a:::
:::::>
~ :::::>
u
a:::
0 <(
srso11ui"RRrC~E:-;E;-;:n:vir::on::m::e:::nta::7l~Sc::;:ie=nc:::-e~A:::-sso::::c-;-::-iat::::es::-: E;::-;1v-;;IC~P~la:::-nn::-:-in::-:g--;:G;-ro-up-------------------Mauntain Valley I 960352 • Figure 4
Surrounding Land Uses

4.1-3

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
farmed intensively. They require only good management practices to remain highly productive and may be irrigated by any method (Oliver, 1993).3
Found in smaller areas on the project site (less than one-fourth of the site) is CbA III-c-1(15), which is also a Chualar loam found on alluvial plains in smaller valleys. Class III soils have severe limitations that may reduce the choice of plants or require special conservation practices.

Although most of the project site consists of high-quality productive soils suited for several types of crop, a smaller area is more suitable to all of the field, forage, orchard and truck crops grown in Monterey County (Oliver, 1993). Most of the soil found on the project site is of higher than average quality, and has a rent of about $500 per acre, due to the types of crop grown (Monterey County Planning Department, 1986; Nutter, 1993; Rochester, 1997).

Agriculture is the largest land use category in Monterey County and the Greater Salinas Planning Area. Of the total County land area, about 1.3 million acres are used for agricultural production (California Department of Conservation, 1996). Of this area, about 174,600 acres are considered Prime Farmlands that have the best combination of physical and chemical features to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops.

The largest land use category in the Greater Salinas Planning Area (one of eight County planning areas) is agriculture. In 1986, agricultural land (including cultivated grazing land) covered about 86,300 acres, or about 84 percent, of the area. (Of that, about 35,000 acres was prime agricultural land.) Incorporated Salinas occupied about 11.5 percent, and commercial, public lands, industrial and unimproved lands, about 4.4 percent (Monterey County, 1986). The project site represents approximately 0.2 percent of the agricultural land and about 0.6 percent of the cultivated prime agricultural land in the Greater Salinas Planning Area.

CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS AND POLICIES
Salinas General Plan
Each city and county in California is required to adopt a general plan that is used to establish goals, objectives, and policies for future development in its respective jurisdiction. The Salinas General Plan was adopted in November 1988. Consistency of the project with land use and agricultural plans, policies and density limits in the General Plan is discussed as part of the 3 Prime agricultural soils west of Salinas are primarily Class I and II soils- Salinas Clay Loam, 0-2% slopes [SbA; Class 1(14)], Cropley Silty Clay, 0-2% slopes [CnA; Ils-5(14)], and Clear Lake Clay [Cg; Uw-5(14)].

4.1-4

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
Environmental Setting, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(b). Consistency of the project with other goals and policies of the General Plan is discussed in other sections of this EIR specific to the topic, including hydrology and drainage, transportation, air quality, and public services.

A summary of the project relationship to key General Plan policies is included here and in other applicable sections of this EIR. Please also refer to Appendix A of the Precise Plan for additional discussion of the project's consistency with the Salinas General Plan.

In order to classify land uses and make growth conditional on the City's ability to meet "quality of life" standards (e.g., provision of adequate services), the City of Salinas divides the urban areas on the General Plan map into two categories. The first is named the Existing Urban Area, and is defined as the area within the City limits, unincorporated area that is already developed, and the areas approved for development prior to 1988. The project site is in the second category, the Conditional Growth Areas, generally around the northern and eastern perimeter of the City.

The conditional growth area is land designated for potential urban development outside the Existing Urban Area, but for which development has not been approved. According to the General Plan, development in the Conditional Growth Areas must be included in a Precise Plan, and have boundaries defined by the city (General Plan Policy 3.1.J). A key goal of the General Plan is to direct future growth towards the north and east, away from the most important agricultural lands surrounding Salinas on the south and west (Policies 3.1.A and 3.3.A).

Existing General Plan land use designations for the site are for predominantly low-density (average 4.25 units per gross acre), but also include medium-density (average 8 units per gross acres) and high-density (average 14.4 units per gross acre) housing, as well as parks (Figure 5). 4 The proposed project would be composed of 853 units with six predominantly medium-density neighborhoods that include affordable housing units, with an overall average gross density of

5.6 units per acre, and would therefore require an amendment to the General Plan land use map. 4 State law, the Salinas General Plan, and Salinas Zoning Code allow for a 25 percent density bonus for projects that include 10 percent of their units as affordable by very-low-income households; 20 percent as affordable by lowincome households, or 50 percent for qualifying households. With the density bonus, the average gross densities for the land use designations in this paragraph are 5.31, 10.0, and 18.0 units per gross acre, respectively. Note that these General Plan densities differ from the densities provided for in the Salinas Zoning Code, which governs density per net acre (lot size). No density bonus is sought as part of the proposed project.

4.1-5
RLD (City of Salinas)
A (Monterey County)
A
.A.LlSAL ST
0 ,, ' .. ·, ' '
H3.J1Delf. ;Coli~&~···
. lSa$1 CatripU.S '
1000
Feet
RLD Residential - Low Density
RMD Residential - Medium Density
RHO Residential - High Density
P Public I Semi-Public
(E) Elementary School
(5) Senior High School
(L) Library
R Retail
K Park
A Agriculture
- • •- Project Boundary
-------------:-::-:----------------------Mountain Val/ey/960352 • SOURCE: EMC Planning Group; Salinas General Plan Figure 5

4.1-6
Existing General Plan
Land Use Designations

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
The proposed densities would be consistent with the General Plan requirements. This General Plan Amendment would be adopted as part of the project approval process.s General Plan Policy 3.3.K states, "In each precise plan area, the goal is to include a total number of units equal to a mix of 55 percent low-density (single-family detached), 10 percent mediumdensity, and 35 percent high-density (apartments). The mix of housing types may vary slightly from this standard :;o long as the total number of units and project impacts remains the same." The City has determined that, because this policy is stated as a goal, a General Plan Amendment would not be required.6 Development at the density proposed under the project would result in more single-family units and fewer total units, with less population (and less resulting water consumption), than under the existing General Plan densities. An alternative that would develop the site at the densities provided for in the current General Plan is examined in Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Policy 3.3.C states, "Maintain the single-family residential character of Salinas by limiting the share of multifamily units to be built in Conditional Growth Areas." As noted above, the project would provide 853 single-family homes.

Several other General Plan policies are applicable to the project. Policy 4.2.D requires a "permanent agricultural buffer as part of residential developments intended by the General Plan to form a permanent urban edge. The purpose is to mitigate the adverse impacts of residential use on adjoining agricultural operations." This policy applies to the southern project boundary.

The project would reach the urban edge and would include a buffer in the form of an approximately 110-foot7 roadway right-of-way on the proposed East Alisal Street extension.

Policy 4.2.C states, "Where feasible, bound the urban area with an arterial road." The project would include partial roadways on the project's southern and eastern edges, with roadway rightsof-way of approximately 110 feet surrounding the entire site. Policy 3.1.1 states, "Encourage new development to be contiguous to existing urban development." The proposed project would be built contiguous to existing development. Policy 4.3.2.A states, "Require new residential 5 According to the Precise Plan for the project, a total of 987 residential units could be built on the project site under General Plan policy 3.3.K density designations. The density bonus allows up to 1,233 residential units to be constructed within the planning area (based on Average Base Density for Conditional Growth area plus 25 percent) (EMC, 1998). No density bonus is sought as part of the proposed project. 6 The Mountain Valley Precise Plan notes that in East Salinas, where the project site is located, multi-family housing is relatively more abundant than in other parts of the City, with nearly 60 percent of the approximately 10,500 units surveyed in east Salinas in 1995 being renter-occupied. Further. the text accompanying General Plan Policy 3.3.N states. "the area between East Laurel Drive and the 1987 urban edge northeast of Del Monte Avenue has more than a fair share of apartments. so single-family homes are desired wherever sites large enough to create a satisfactory environment are available.
7 A 112-foot right-of-way assumes ultimate construction of four 13-foot travel lanes (two each direction), two 6-foot bicycle lanes, an 18-foot landscaped median, a 20-foot landscaped area between the lot line and curb with a meandering sidewalk, and a 10-foot landscaped strip at the outermost edge with a stormwater interceptor swale.

4.1-7

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
development to provide land and/or fees to achieve a minimum of three acres per 1,000 population for developed public parklands for community or neighborhood parks." The project, with a projected population of about 2,730 persons,8 would require 8.1 acres of developed parks. The donation of title fee and improvement (lawn and irrigation) of a community park of 21.5 acres9 is proposed.

A portion of the project site is within the Airport Local Area of Influence (City of Salinas, 1988b). Policy 5.7.F requires the dedication of an avigation easementlO as a condition of subdivision approval. Airport-related issues are discussed in a later section.

Policy 5.7.G, specifically referring to areas near Salinas Municipal Airport such as the project site, requires the dedication of a buffer strip adjoining land designated for agricultural use. The project would provide a buffer strip in the form of rights-of-way for Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street. (Policy 5.7.G does not apply to the eastern project boundary, as the land east of the site is designated for development in the General Plan. However, because the land east of the site would remain in agricultural production for at least the immediate future, a buffer strip would be provided there as part of the project.) The project would include construction of East Alisal Street, along the southern project boundary, and Freedom Parkway, along the eastern boundary, to a width of approximately 50 feet in each case. A wall would surround the northern, eastern, and southern project boundaries. Such buffers would limit the potential nuisance to project residents of agricultural activities.

With approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the inclusion of an agricultural buffer, and incorporation of an avigation easement, the Mountain Valley project would be consistent with the Salinas General Plan, viewed as a whole.

Greater Salinas Area Plan (Part of the Monterey County General Plan)ll The Greater Salinas Area Plan, adopted in 1986 as an amendment to the Monterey County General Plan, sets forth planning goals and objectives for unincorporated lands surrounding 8 Assumes 3.2 persons per household at 853 units.
9 The General Plan specifies 20 acres as the minimum size for a community park (Policy 4.3.1.J). According to the Precise Plan, the community park would share approximately 2 acres with the proposed elementary school adjacent to the park (EMC, 1997).
10 An avigation easement acknowledges the operation of aircraft above the land in question and provides notification of the aircraft uses to underlying property owners.
11 Discussion of the Monterey County General Plan is for information only. With project approval and annexation of the site to the City of Salinas, the project site would no longer be under the jurisdiction of Monterey County.

4.1-8

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
Salinas. Policy 26.1.14.1 (a-b) states that the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the City and the County should jointly plan with the objective of providing for orderly annexation and infilling of existing urban areas, efficient use of land proposed for annexation, and the prevention of premature urbanization. In addition, Policy 26.1.14.1 (c) states that "productive farmlands are to be preserved, enhanced and expanded" (Monterey County Planning Department, 1986).

The proposed project would not conform with the Greater Salinas Area Plan in that it would convert prime agricultural lands to urban uses. However, it is consistent with policy

2.6.1.14.1(a-b). With respect to policy 2.6.1.14.1(c), 160 acres of the site is designated as "Urban Reserve" in the Plan and is therefore intended for annexation to the City and urban development. As noted in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the project sponsor seeks to include as part of the project site approximately 40 acres outside the Salinas Sphere of Influence (and the Urban Reserve lands) to allow for an extension of the existing Freedom Parkway across Williams Road and along the project's eastern boundary.

Zoning
The site is currently zoned for agricultural use (40-acre minimum lot size) by Monterey County.

The approximately 160-acre portion of the site within the City's Sphere of Influence (see below, under LAFCO) is also zoned for agriculture with an "urban reserve" overlay. Existing zoning is shown in Figure 6.

Williamson Act Lands
Under the provisions of the Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act of 1965, §51200 et seq.), landowners may contract with the county to maintain agricult4ral or open space use of their lands in return for a reduced property tax assessment. The development restriction imposed upon the land is self-renewing. The landowner may notify the county at any time of intent to withdraw the land from preserve status. There is a 10-year process for withdrawing from a Williamson Act contract.

No portion of the project site is on Williamson Act lands. The closest and most recent lands designated under the Williamson Act in the project vicinity are approximately 1.5 miles southwest and 1.3 miles northeast of the project site; they were placed under Williamson Act contracts in 1981 (Lent, 1993; Rochester, 1997). Land in the project vicinity under the Williamson Act is shown in Figure 7.

4.1-9
I
PROP05f0 I
SHOPI'IN4
·\
Cf.N/l'.R
I
I t!
I~ I
F/40 I
I r
F/40-UR I 0
I
Q
u.J
UJ
~
LR:J
I
I
I ~
I
I
:;r~~~·, \ "";~:_, I \
SCHOOL 1 I
p I ?Q~-- I
~-- --------------------------------~ eAST AU5AL 5TRE.E.T C.XTE.N510N AGRICULTURE F/40
RL·6.5 Low Density Residential F/40 Agriculture, 40-acre minimum RM·4.0 Medium Density Residential (Monterey County)
7t RH·3.6 High Density Residential F/40-UR Agriculture, 40-acre minimum, w
cr.:
:J
~ :J
u
cr.:
(.!)
<
0 600
PS Public and Semi Public Urban Reserve (Monterey County) Feet CR Commercial Retail ----Project Boundary
-------------------------------------Mountain Val/ey/960352 • SOURCE: Salinas Zoning Code; Monterey County Planning Department; EMC Planning Group Figure 6
Existing Zoning Designations

4.1-10
JLA
~E':lERVATlON
,;/ ...
/
~ 10 Year Contract
LIIlilJl 20 Year Contract
- Project Site
/ '
-: "'
• -- .. ·
•
I
·~··· .... ~ /
I
... (
J:
0 L......

Feet
---------------------------------------------Mountain Val/ey/960352 • SOURCE: Salinas General Plan E!R Figure 7
Williamson Act Lands

4.1-11

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
Lands east and southwest of the project site are under 10-year contract, and lands northwest, southwest and southeast of the site are under 20-year contract.

Annexation of the site by the City of Salinas, as part of the project, would remove the site from county jurisdiction and place it under the City's zoning ordinance. The project would include prezoning of the site. Proposed zoning for the project site is shown in Figure 8.

Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Under state legislation, each County LAFCO is empowered to ensure that change in governmental organization occurs in an orderly manner that provides efficient services and preserves agricultural and open space land. Annexation of the site to the City of Salinas must be approved by LAFCO. Figure 9 shows the existing Sphere of Influence boundary. Because the project includes annexation, state-mandated LAFCO policies provide guidelines for approval of the proposed annexation.

LAFCO' s powers are set forth in the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, commencing with §56000 of the California Government Code. The legislative intent (§56300) is that each LAFCO establish policies and exercise its powers in a manner that provides planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration to preserving open space and agricultural lands within those patterns. The Act's purposes (§56301) are the discouragement of urban sprawl and the encouragement of the orderly formation of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances. Specific policy elements established by the Act applicable to the Mountain Valley project site are as follows:
• To encourage orderly growth and development patterns (§56001); • To shape the development of local agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of each county and its communities (§56301); and • To guide development away from open space and prime agricultural land uses unless such action would not promote planned, orderly and efficient development (§56377).

To implement the legislative mandate, LAFCOs have the specific authority to review the following actions:
• annexations to, or detachment from, cities or districts;

4.1-12
RL-6.5
RL·6.5
7f RM·4.0
600 RH·3.6 0
PS
Feet CR
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Public and Semi Public
Commercial Retail
F I 40 Agriculture, 40-acre minimum
(Monterey County)
----Project Boundary
NOTE: Precise on-site zoning boundaries to be
determined as tentative subdivision maps
are filed.
----------------------------------------Mountain Val/ey/960352 • SOURCE: Salinas Zoning Code: Monterey County Planning Department:

EMC Planning Group Figure 8
Proposed Zoning Designations

4.1-13
OtNN\5
0 PROP05f0
5HOPP!Nq
CeNTe.R
600
Feet
EXTE.N510N
- • •- Project Boundary
Proposed Expansion of City Limit
and Urban Service Area
•••••••• Existing Salinas Sphere of Influence
(Urban Transition Area)
----- Existing Salinas City Limit
~SO:;-;U-;;:R~C:;;E::-E;;~::;;IC::;-P;:;;-Ia::::n-::;ni-:::ng:-;G~r-:::ou:::-p,-;H~.D;-.-;:;Pe::::te:-:_-rs:--------------------------Mounlain Valley I 960352 • Figure 9
City of Salinas Sphere of Influence

4.1-14

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
• formation or dissolution of districts;
• incorporation or reorganization of cities or districts; • establishment of subsidiary districts; and development of, and amendments to Spheres of Influence.l2
To implement the legislative policies, LAFCO has the power to approve or disapprove applications and impose conditions (§56844). However, LAFCO may not exercise direct land use authority through use of the zoning or subdivision process. Annexation of the project site to the City of Salinas, detachment of the site from rural services districts (Salinas Rural Fire Protection District, Monterey County Resource Conservation District), and attachment of the site to the Monterey Regional County Sanitation District - Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency would require LAFCO approval. Through its review process, LAFCO seeks to ensure local agency coordination, particularly in the provision of public services.

The Monterey County LAFCO has adopted standards for the evaluation of proposals for governmental reorganization (including annexations), as permitted by State law. The standards include evaluation criteria corresponding to LAFCO policies on site boundaries, duplication of service provision, conformity with General Plans and other planning documents, Spheres of Influence, environmental impacts (including the requirement for review under the California Environmental Quality Act, which is satisfied by this EIR), economics, provision of public services, phasing of development, open space, and preservation of agricultural land (Monterey County LAFCO, 1991). (See Section 4.4, Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality, for a discussion of the proposed project's consistency with LAFCO Groundwater Standards.)

PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH LAFCO POLICIES
Approval of the proposed annexation would lead to conversion of prime agricultural lands to urban uses. LAFCO policies do not specifically preclude the approval of annexations that may lead to the development of agricultural lands. Under state law, LAFCO is directed to guide development from prime agricultural toward non-prime land, unless this would not result in an orderly and efficient development (California Government Code §56377). LAFCO would make a determination of consistency during review of the proposed annexation. 12 The Sphere of Influence, whose boundary is set by LAFCO, is the area surrounding the developed portion of a City that is expected to become urbanized and is included in local plans as potential urban expansion.

4.1-15

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
The currently adopted Sphere of Influence encompasses about 160 acres of the project site, which is adjacent to the city limits (Figure 8). Areas outside the current Sphere include the proposed Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street rights-of-way along the east and south project boundaries, respectively (about 10 acres) and a strip of land along the eastern project boundary (about 25 acres). With the exception of a segment of Freedom Parkway serving the Williams Road intersection, Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street would be constructed at half of their ultimately planned widths adjacent to the project site. The segment of Freedom Parkway between Williams Road and Mountain Valley Boulevard would be fully developed (EMC, 1998). The developed roadways and remaining undeveloped rights-of-ways (each approximately 110 feet wide) would be expected to serve as buffers between the project's residential areas and the adjacent agricultural use. In the past, LAFCO has generally required such buffers to be onsite in order to avoid jurisdictional conflicts (Wells, 1998), and it is unlikely that LAFCO would approve the splitting of the buffer between on- and off-site uses. However, it is possible that adjustment of the Sphere of Influence to accommodate a four-way intersection of Williams Road and Freedom Parkway, rather than two "T" intersections, could be acceptable to LAFCO (Wells, 1998).

Those portions of the site already within the Sphere of Influence must be redesignated from Urban Transition Area to Urban Service Area as part of LAFCO' s approval. Those portions outside the Sphere of Influence must be approved for inclusion and designated Urban Service Area.

LAFCO would evaluate the effect of the project on adjacent areas (§56377), local government structure (§56841(c)), provision of public services (§56841(b)), and the effect of the proposal on maintaining physical and economic integrity of agricultural land (§56016). LAFCO would make a determination of consistency regarding the sphere of influence change. A separate analysis for the provision and financing of services has been prepared for the proposed project. LAFCO will use that document in its review of the feasibility of public service provision to the project site.

Relative to LAFCO Standards for the Evaluation of Proposals, the project could be viewed favorably because it: would not result in duplication of responsibility for provision of public services between two or more agencies; would conform with the Salinas General Plan (as it would be amended by the project); would be consistent with policies in the Greater Salinas Area Plan (part of the Monterey County General Plan) regarding productive farmlands and the site's designation as "Urban Reserve;" would allow for the provision of appropriate public services;

4.1-16

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
would provide for stormwater retention; would incorporate water conservation measures; and would result in a net on-site decrease in water use. The project could be viewed unfavorably because it: would not conform with aspects of the Greater Salinas Area Plan; would require a change in the City of Salinas Sphere of Influence; would result in the conversion of prime agricultural land to an urbanized area, although 160 acres are anticipated to undergo urban development as these are within Urban Reserve; and would not use reclaimed wastewater.

LAFCO would balance the project's beneficial effects with its adverse effects in making a decision on project approval. As stated in the commission's standards, "It should be noted that no one standard is of paramount importance nor is universally absolute. Because local circumstances and conditions vary, the Commission must consider the facts in evidence as they relate to all standards." It should be noted that LAFCO previously approved designation of 160 acres of the approximately 200-acre site for ultimate urban expansion when the Commission approved the existing Sphere of Influence.

SALINAS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Airport Master Plan and Runway Usage
The Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), created by state law, is composed of seven members: two representing cities, two representing the County, two representing airport operators, and one representing the public. The ALUC' s duties include making recommendations for the use of land surrounding airports to assure safety of air navigation, and promoting air commerce. In 1993 the City adopted the Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan 1990-2010. The Master Plan evaluates existing facilities, assesses airport demand, and plans airport improvements to accommodate demand to the year 2010. 13 There are four runways at Salinas Municipal Airport. Runways 13/31 and 8/26 accommodate most of the aircraft activity. According to the 1993 Master Plan, about 60 percent of existing operations occur on runway 8/26 and 40 percent occur on runway 13/31. However, the Master Plan acknowledges that some additional training ("touch-and-go") and crop dusting operations are carried out on runway 14/32 and also on runway 3/21 (City of Salinas, 1993; Wadell Engineering, 1996). The number of operations performed on Runway 3/21 is apparently small.

The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) included in the 1993 Master Plan indicates. that the runway is now used for transient aircraft parking. As indicated in the Master Plan and on the ALP, future 13 The Master Plan is primarily concerned with airport facilities development. An airport comprehensive plan that typically addresses land use issues surrounding the airport has not been adopted (Hopkins, 1997).

4.1-17

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
improvements, including airplane hangars, are planned at the end of runway 3/21 within the existing runway protection zone. These future improvements would effectively eliminate use of runway 3/21 when implemented as part of Master Plan Stage II (11 to 20 years).

Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
The southwest boundary of the Mountain Valley project site is located about one-half mile from the end of Salinas Municipal Airport runway 3/21. The project site is situated beneath common flight tracks for runway 3/21 and for runway 13/31 and is within that portion of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 runway protection area known as the "Horizontal Surface." FAR Part 77 has been adopted as a means of monitoring and protecting the airspace in the vicinity of airports to ensure safe operation of aircraft at the airport. FAR Part 77 establishes standards for identifying potential obstructions to air navigation in the vicinity of an airport. The standards apply within zones defined as planes, or "imaginary surfaces," that extend outward from the "Primary Surface," which includes the runway, through the "Transitional Surface," "Approach Surface," "Horizontal Surface," and "Conical Surface." The airspace protection zones defined under FAR Part 77 typically extend two to three miles from runway ends but may extend almost eight miles for precision approach corridors. The project site is also partly within the "Airport Local Area of Influence," as shown in the City of Salinas General Plan. The flight tracks over the project site and the Local Area of Influence are shown on Figure 10.

The proposed project would be compatible with the applicable FAR Part 77 standards. The project includes no design elements over 200 feet in height, nor other elements that would require an FAA FAR Part 77 obstruction analysis. However, pursuant to CEQA Section 21096, the project site is within an area that warrants analysis using the Airport Land Use Handbook published by Caltrans (Caltrans, 1993). This section states that the Handbook "shall be utilized as a technical resource to assist in the preparation of the environmental impact report as the report relates to airport-related safety hazards and noise problems." Noise issues are described in section 4.7 of this EIR; safety-related Handbook recommendations are discussed below.

Land use compatibility considerations applicable to the project site are described within the Handbook under Chapter 9, Safety Compatibility Policy Issues (within Part II, Airport Land Use Compatibility Issues). The Handbook presents guidelines that are suggested for the Airport Land Use Commissions' use in promoting a high degree of compatibility between airports and surrounding land uses. The guidelines vary according to zones established by the Handbook.

4.1-18
i l
•••••••• Airport Local Area of Influence
- ___.,_ Flight Track
0 Mile
---------------------------------------Mollntain Va//ey/960352 • SOURCE: DKS Associates. Salinas General Plan

4.1-19
Figure 10
Airport Local Area of Influence

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
Like the FAR Part 77 "surfaces," the Handbook zones extend outward from the immediate area of the runway (the "Inner Safety Zone") to the "Traffic Pattern Zone," which is described as follows: "Encompassing the common flight tracks to and from the airport, the limits of this zone could generally be defined by the FAR Part 77 horizontal surface" (Caltrans, 1993). The entire project site thus is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone for Salinas Municipal Airport.

The Handbook provides guidelines for uses within zones but states that these guidelines are "recommendations and suggestions for consideration by individual airport land use commissions, counties, and cities" and are not regulation, policies, or standards (Caltrans, 1993). The following text from the Handbook provides guidelines for land uses within the Traffic Pattern Zone.

Traffic Pattern Zone- Within other portions of the airport area routinely overflown by aircraft, the potential for aircraft accidents is relatively low and the need for land use restrictions is thus minimal.

Density of Use - Only very large assemblies of people - in the 150 or more people per acre range- need to be avoided.

Residential Land Uses - In small communities, typical residential subdivision densities of 4 to 6 dwelling units per acre are acceptable from a safety perspective. In urban areas, even higher densities may be reasonable, especially if development is clustered to provide open space as discussed below.

Special Functions - Schools, hospitals and nursing homes should be avoided in traffic pattern zones unless no other feasible alternatives are available.

The following text describes Handbook guidelines concerning open space requirements.

Traffic Pattern Zone- Elsewhere within the airport environment, 10%-15% usable open space or an open area approximately every 114 to 112 mile should be provided.

Consistency with Airport Land Use Handbook Guidelines
The design of the proposed project would conflict with an applicable Airport Handbook land.use recommendation. The proposed project includes a school within the Traffic Pattern Zone; as noted above, schools are considered "special functions" that "should be avoided in traffic pattern zones unless no other feasible alternatives are available." The Handbook further notes that state law requires any school district proposing to acquire a site for an elementary or secondary school located within two miles of a runway to notify the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans) of the intended action. The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics is then required to evaluate the site and communicate its findings to the school district.

Salinas City CouncilOctober 4, 2022

Salinas City Council
October 4, 2022