Agenda Packet — Salinas City Council, October 18, 2022 (part 1 of 5)

Tuesday, October 18, 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 18, 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

COMMENDATION
George and Mimi Niesen

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.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
ID#22-574 Amendment of Commercial Cannabis Taxation Rates Recommendation: Approve a Resolution to amend Commercial Cannabis taxation rates to 2.5% of gross receipts for manufacturing and $7 per square foot of canopy for cultivation pursuant to Section 19A.10.330 of the Salinas Municipal Code.

ID#22-554 2021 Application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program and 5-Year Plan Amendment
City of Salinas Page 2 Printed on 10/14/2022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 18, 2022
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the submission of the City's annual application for 2021 Permanent Local Housing Allocation funds to the California Department of Housing and Community Development; submission of an amended Permanent Local Housing Allocation 5-Year Plan; appropriation of 2021 PLHA funds to General Ledger account fund SB2 (2951); and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute all applicable agreements.

CONSIDERATIONS
ID#22-573 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - Downtown Exemption [Salinas Municipal Code Section 17-8(d)]
Recommendation: No specific action is recommended. The City Council is asked to consider whether the exemption provided to residential developments in the downtown area [Salinas Municipal Code section 17-8(d)] should be repealed.

ID#22-581 Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP No. 9720 Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving the Plans and Specifications for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP No. 9720; and authorizing issuance of an Invitation to Bidders, with bids to be opened on November 22, 2022.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
ID#22-556 Public Art Program Update
Recommendation: No action. This report presented information to the City Council regarding the City of Salinas Public Art Program.

ID#22-521 Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan
Recommendation: No action. This report presents information to the City Council regarding the Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan.

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#22-590 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve minutes of October 4, 2022.

ID#22-585 Financial Claims
Recommendation: Approved financial claims report.

ID#22-531 Amendment to Purchase Order with Wallace Group Inc. for Support Services related to the Lake Street Emergency Sewer Repairs
City of Salinas Page 3 Printed on 10/14/2022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 18, 2022
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving a purchase order amendment in the amount of $17,500 between the City of Salinas and Wallace Group, Inc. for support services related to the Lake Street Emergency Sewer repairs; and authorize a transfer of $17,500 from account 5800.50.9302-66.4000 (Improvements) to account 5800.50.9302-63.5010 (Professional Services) in the Capital Projects Fund.

ID#22-532 Amended Professional Service Agreement with Wallace Group for Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving an Amended and Restated Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $633,249 between the City of Salinas and Wallace Group for the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan update; 2) authorize a transfer of $45,000 from CIP 9032 account 5800.50.9302-66.4000 (Improvements) to CIP 9008 account 5800.50.9008-63.5400 (Engineering Services) in the Capital Projects Fund; and 3) authorize an increase of the CIP 9008, Sanitary Sewer Master Plan appropriation in the same amount.

ID#22-546 Annual Investment Policy
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution adopting the Annual Investment Policy for the City of Salinas for Fiscal Year 2023 as attached.

ID#22-555 Acceptance of CA-COC 506 Salinas/Monterey and San Benito Counties Continuum of Care Housing Assistance and Prevention Program Grant Funds Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $722,305.07 of CA-COC 506 Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Program grant funds; the establishment and/or increase of Housing - Other Agency Match Fund Special Programs (2945.30.3240) appropriations totaling $722,305.07 and corresponding revenue budget; and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all applicable agreements.

ID#22-557 Agreement with the County of Monterey for the Roundabout at Davis Road Bridge Replacement and Road Widening Project
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving an agreement between the City of Salinas and the County of Monterey for the Roundabout at the Davis Road Bridge Replacement and Road Widening Project.

ID#22-558 Agreement with Engie Services US, Inc. for Maintenance Services of the City’s Solar Photovoltaic Systems
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving an Agreement for Services in the amount of $643,088 between the City of Salinas and Engie Services US, Inc. for the Maintenance Services for the City of Salinas Solar Photovoltaic Systems.

ID#22-561 Amendment 1 to FY 2022-2023 Agreement for Professional Services with Tina La Perle
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute Amendment 1 to the FY 2022-2023 Agreement for Professional Services with Tina La Perle to extend the agreement term through to December 31, 2022 and increase the total not to exceed compensation amount to $71,000.

ID#22-562 California Library Literacy Services Adult And Family Literacy Grant Awards
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution accepting the California Library Literacy Services grant award of $181,085 for the continuation of the library's adult and family literacy programs.

City of Salinas Page 4 Printed on 10/14/2022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 18, 2022
ID#22-563 Conflict of Interest Code - Biennial Review
Recommendation: Adopt an Ordinance amending Salinas City Code Chapter 1, Article 3, updating the City's conflict of interest code.

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#22-587 a. Pending Litigation - California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with legal counsel regarding, Santa Rita Union High School District, et al. v. City of Salinas et al., Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV000242.
b. Pending Litigation - California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with legal counsel regarding, Alisal Union School District, et al. v. City of Salinas, et al., Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV00340. c. Real Property Negotiations - California Government Code Section 54956.8, conference with real property negotiators City Manager Steven S. Carrigan, City Attorney Christopher A. Callihan, Community Development Director Megan Hunter, Assistant Community Development Director Lisa Brinton, and Planning Manager Rod Powell to discuss the terms and sale of real properties located at 37, 37A, 37-C/A, 39 ½, 39-C/A Soledad Street (APN 002191012000); and 34, 36, 38, 40 Soledad Street (APN 002194029000).
d. Labor Negotiations - California Government Code Section §54957.6 with its designated labor representatives Steven S. Carrigan, City Manager; Jim Pia, Assistant City Manager; Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney; Katherine Hogan, Assistant City Attorney; Mark Roberts, Finance Director; Marina Horta-Gallegos, Human Resources Director; Sylvia Enriquez, Senior Human Resources Analyst; and Matt Weatherly, President, Public Sector Personnel Consultants, regarding labor relations with Service Employees International Union (SEIU), SEIU Supervisors, Salinas Municipal Employees Association/SEIU, Association of Management Personnel, Police Officers Association, Police Management Association, International Association of Firefighters, Fire Supervisors Association, Confidential Non-Management Employees, Confidential Management Employees, and Department Directors. e. Labor Negotiations - California Government Code section 54957.6, with its designated labor representatives Steven S. Carrigan, City Manager; Jim Pia, Assistant City Manager; Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney; Katherine Hogan, Assistant City Attorney; Mark Roberts, Finance Director; Marina Horta-Gallegos, Human Resources Director; Sylvia Enriquez, Senior Human Resources Analyst; Che Johnson, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, regarding labor City of Salinas Page 5 Printed on 10/14/2022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 18, 2022
relations with Service Employees International Union (SEIU), SEIU Supervisors, Salinas Municipal Employees Association/SEIU, Association of Management Personnel, Police Officers Association, Police Management Association, International Association of Firefighters, Fire Supervisors Association, Confidential Management Employees, Confidential Non-Management Employees.
f. Performance Evaluation and Labor - California Government Code §54957 and §54957.6, public employee performance evaluation and labor relations with unrepresented employee (City Manager).
g. 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, October 13, 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 6 Printed on 10/14/2022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 18, 2022
City of Salinas Page 7 Printed on 10/14/2022
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-574, Version: 1
Amendment of Commercial Cannabis Taxation Rates
Approve a Resolution to amend Commercial Cannabis taxation rates to 2.5% of gross receipts for manufacturing and $7 per square foot of canopy for cultivation pursuant to Section 19A.10.330 of the Salinas Municipal Code.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/12/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2022
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: MEGAN HUNTER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
TITLE: AMENDMENT OF COMMERCIAL CANNABIS TAXATION
RATES
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution to amend Commercial Cannabis taxation rates to 2.5% of gross receipts for manufacturing and $7 per square foot of canopy for cultivation pursuant to Section 19A.10.330 of the Salinas Municipal Code.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On February 15, 2022, City Council directed staff to hire a consultant to prepare a report on recommended taxation rates after hearing testimony of multiple cannabis business owners concerned about long-term financial viability of the industry in the City. The City contracted with SCI Consulting Group which completed the report and presented findings to the City Council on August 23, 2022. During the meeting there was no clear consensus among Councilmembers on recommended rates. Some Councilmembers expressed support for a more moderate approach to reducing rates, and even requiring community benefits for such a reduction (Council members Barrera, González, Osornio, and Rocha expressed support for the idea of community benefits agreements tied to rate adjustments). Other members proposed an even more aggressive reduction than the SCI Group report. Ultimately, staff was directed back to the Cannabis Committee for guidance. On September 22, 2022, the Cannabis Committee met and Councilmembers McShane and Osornio recommended that staff return to City Council with a rate reduction of 2.5% of gross receipts for manufacturing and a rate of $7 per square foot of canopy for cultivation. No other rates were recommended for amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On February 15, 2022, the City Council received an annual report on the commercial cannabis industry in Salinas. During the meeting, several business owners provided testimony expressing concern about the taxation rates for cultivation and manufacturing given the changing environment of the cannabis industry. As a result, City Council directed staff to hire a consultant to prepare a report on recommended taxation rates. After conducting an RFP process, City Council approved a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with SCI Consulting Group to complete the study and provide cannabis monitoring services. SCI Consulting Group completed the study in August and presented the findings to City Council on August 23, 2022.

Page | 2
The report included a table (Table 1) that outlined tax revenue collected through commercial cannabis by business type. Although total tax revenue for 2022 is not complete, the report noted that 2022 revenue is likely to decline from 2021. During the presentation, SCI Group stated that this was occurring across the state and that inflation was impacting overall revenue across the industry.

Table 1 - Salinas Cannabis Industry Tax Revenue by Business Type (2017-2022) Business Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Delivery $38,989 $102,917 $117,138 $197,395 $134,572 $16,600 Dispensary IA $285,475 $949,762 $1,124,674 $1,221,626 $333,647 Cultivation IA IA IA $8,679 $73,539 $19,200
Manufacturing $335,380 $482,057 $561,413 $511,284 $669,760 $168,926 Total $374,369 $870,449 $1,628,314 $1,842,033 $2,099,497 $538,373 IA = business type was inactive during this term, i.e. not yet conducting commercial operations and paying the cannabis business tax
Despite the projected decline of revenue in 2022, the report found that the City’s “current rates, rate structure, number and types of businesses are generally appropriate and well within California norms”. The report, however, did recommend a reduction to the tax rates for manufacturing to between 2.5% and 3% of gross receipts and for cultivation to between $7 to $10 per square foot of canopy and cultivation. While Council did not achieve a consensus on the recommended rate, staff was directed back to the Cannabis Committee for guidance.

DISCUSSION:

On September 22, 2022, the Cannabis Committee met. Councilmembers McShane and Osornio discussed the proposed rates, and it was recommended that staff return to City Council with a recommended rate reduction of 2.5% of gross receipts for manufacturing and a rate of $7 per square foot of canopy for cultivation. No other rates were recommended for amendment.

Based on this recommendation, staff drafted a public hearing notice outlining the proposed amendment to the commercial cannabis taxation rates. This notice was published in the Monterey Herald on October 4, 2022, in compliance with the required 14 day minimum. Additional notification was also provided in the Monterey County Weekly on October 6 and 13, 2022.

Table 2 below highlights the current and proposed rates by business type and the maximum rate allowed by Salinas voters. The City Council by resolution can amend the commercial cannabis rates as long as they do not exceed the maximum authorized by voters.

Page | 3
Table 2 – Cannabis Tax Rates (Current & Proposed)
Business Type Current Rate Maximum Rate Proposed Rate
Retail (Dispensary) 5% of Gross Receipts 10% of Gross Receipts No Change Retail Delivery 5% of Gross Receipts 10% of Gross Receipts No Change Manufacturing 5% of Gross Receipts 10% of Gross Receipts 2.5% of Gross Receipts
Cultivation $15/sf of Canopy $25/sf of Canopy $7/sf of Canopy Nursery $2/sf of Canopy $5/sf of Canopy No Change
Distribution No Tax No Tax No Change
Testing No Tax No Tax No Change
The rates recommended by the Cannabis Committee are consistent with the SCI Group report that recognizes some of the ongoing challenges among manufacturing and cultivation businesses because of greater volatility and higher operational expenses. In consideration of these barriers and public comment from the August 23rd meeting, the Committee recommended the more aggressive rate change of 2.5% of gross receipts for manufacturing and $7/sf of canopy for cultivation.

Both City Council and the Cannabis Committee recognize that reduce taxation rates is not enough, and further directed staff to work on additional amendments to the Commercial Cannabis Ordinance to remove obstacles such as non-operational businesses with permits or limited vacant land/properties that are also likely affecting revenue. This work has already begun at the Committee level, and it is anticipated that other amendments will be presented to City Council for consideration in January 2023.

Community Benefits Agreements
The City may add a “community benefit” consideration to the cannabis tax calculation. This would be an alternative to the approval of a Resolution reducing the overall tax rate for either or both of the business types discussed in this Report and the proposed Resolution (manufacturing and cultivation). As a policy matter, community benefits are generally those above and beyond normal good design, responsible business operation, and minimal compliance with City requirements.

Community benefits from other jurisdictions that the City may adopt include:
 Employment for residents of the City, paid a living wage and benefit;  Improvements to the property where the cannabis business is proposed to be operated and adjoining properties;
 Public outreach and education/community service;
 Hiring partners and employees from marginalized communities and/or rehabilitated persons or employees with cannabis criminal arrest history;  Green Business certification;
Page | 4
 Living wages for employees;
 Contributions to non-profits; and
 Community security patrols in the vicinity of the business.

The tax relief could be granted immediately based on future community benefit promised in an agreement or permit condition. Alternatively, and for greater security for the City, the tax relief would be provided as a tax refund after the tax is paid and the community benefit has been provided. Businesses that want to be eligible for the community benefit refund could apply either when they apply for their original permit or when they apply for a renewal.

The approximate process for a community benefit tax refund could be: (1) the identified type and amount of community benefit would be approved with the application for approval or renewal; (2) the full quarterly tax payments would be made; (3) at the end of the year, the cannabis business would verify that all approved community benefits had been provided and request the tax refund; and (4) the City would process the tax refund either as a payment or as a credit against the next quarterly tax payment.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. [CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)].

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The recommendations are consistent with those in the SCI Consulting Group Commercial Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report and will help meet the City Council Strategic Goal of Effective and Culturally Responsive Government as it will help apply data-driven management to decision-making. The recommendations will also advance the Goal of Economic Development by encouraging a diverse and thriving economy around the commercial cannabis industry.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

City departments coordinate on cannabis taxation as it involves both revenue and land use. The Community Development Department (CDD) coordinates regularly with the Finance Department regarding cannabis taxation and the Legal Department as it relates to the Salinas Municipal Code and Commercial Cannabis. If City Council recommends action to adjust taxation rates, CDD will work with the Legal Department to amend the Code.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

It is hard to quantify the overall impact on the reduction in tax rates on revenue over time because it remains to be seen if reducing these rates will promote greater growth and stability in Salinas’ Page | 5
commercial cannabis industry. The immediate impact can be extrapolated as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 - Potential Tax Revenue Loss by Business Type Based Upon 2021 Business Type Base Year
2021
$7 sq ft/

2.5%
Cultivation $73,539 $34,318
Manufacturing $669,760 $334,880
Total $743,299 $369,198
Using 2021 revenues for illustration, a tax rate of 2.5% of gross receipts for manufacturing would result in a $334,880 reduction in revenue per year. A decrease in the rates for cultivation will have a less dramatic impact on current revenue since this business type is less developed in the City. At $7 per sq ft, the potential revenue loss is $39,221. In total, the potential annual loss of revenue in the immediate short term could be approximately $374,101 per year.

It should be noted that the level of revenue is never guaranteed, and it is possible the reduction in rates will stabilize these business types and result in new cannabis ventures, which could ultimately result in a more stable revenue source for the City.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Commercial Cannabis Taxation Amendment Resolution

2. August 23, 2022 Report and Attachments

3. SCI Consulting Group Commercial Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report

4. Commercial Cannabis Taxation Amendment Powerpoint
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

RESOLUTION BY THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL AMENDING COMMERCIAL

CANNABIS TAXATION RATES
WHEREAS, based on voter approval, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2583 on December 6, 2016, establishing a cannabis business tax in Chapter 19A of the Salinas Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, under Section 19A.10.330, the City Council is grated the authority to amend the tax rates without the vote of the people as along as the amendment would not increase the rates of any tax levied above the maximum outlined in the Chapter 19A; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council directed staff to hire a consultant to prepare a report on recommended taxation rates after hearing testimony of multiple cannabis business owners concerned about the long-term financial viability of the industry; and WHEREAS, after completing a competitive Request for Proposal process, the City Council selected SCI Consulting Group (“SCI Group”) to complete a taxation recommendation report (“Report”); and
WHEREAS, SCI Group presented the report to City Council on August 23, 2022, and found that the City’s “current rates, rate structure, number and types of businesses are generally appropriate and well within California norms”, however, the report did recommend a reduction to the tax rates for manufacturing to between 2.5% and 3% of gross receipts and for cultivation to between $7 to $10 per square foot of canopy; and
WHEREAS, during the August 23rd meeting, the City Council was unable to achieve a clear consensus among Councilmembers on recommended rates, and ultimately staff was directed back to the Cannabis Committee for guidance; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2022, the Cannabis Committee met and Councilmembers McShane and Osornio recommended that staff return to City Council with a recommended rate reduction of 2.5% of gross receipts for manufacturing and a rate of $7 per square foot of canopy for cultivation; and
WHEREAS, the rates recommended by the Cannabis Committee are consistent with the SCI Group report that recognizes some of the ongoing challenges among manufacturing and cultivation businesses because of greater volatility and higher operational expenses; and WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby reduces the commercial cannabis business tax to 2.5% of gross receipts for manufacturing businesses and $7 per square foot of canopy for cultivation businesses. Existing rates for all other commercial cannabis business types are retained.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 18th day of October 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

CITY OF SALINAS
Commercial Cannabis Taxation
Recommendation Report
August 2022
City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Reccomendation Report
August 2022
Page ii
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 Background................................................................................................................................ 1 Summary and Recommendations............................................................................................. 1 Overview of the Salinas Cannabis Market .................................................................... 4 Commercial Cannabis Business Regulation and Permitting...................................................... 4 Cannabis Tax Revenue............................................................................................................... 6 Analysis of Current State and Local Tax Structure ........................................................ 9 State Cannabis Taxes................................................................................................................. 9 Local Cannabis Tax Rate .......................................................................................................... 10 City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Reccomendation Report
August 2022
Page iii
List of Tables
Table 1 – Commercial Cannabis Permit (CCP) Quotas..................................................................... 4 Table 2 – CCP: Operational Status ................................................................................................... 5 Table 3 – Administrative Permits: Operational Status..................................................................... 6 Table 4 – Cannabis Tax Rates........................................................................................................... 6 Table 5 – Salinas Cannabis Industry Tax Revenue by Business Type (2017-2022) .......................... 7 Table 6 – Salinas Cannabis Industry Tax Revenue (2017-2022)....................................................... 7 Table 7 – Local Cannabis Tax Rates, Nearby and Selected Cities................................................... 11 Table 8 – Nearby Cannabis Retailers ............................................................................................. 12 Table 9 – Salinas Retail Cannabis Tax Revenue (2017-2022)......................................................... 12 Table 10 – Gross receipt Tax Equivalent at $15 per sqft ............................................................... 14 Table 11 – Gross receipt Tax Equivalent at $10 per sqft ............................................................... 14 Table 12 – Gross receipt Tax Equivalent at $7 per sqft ................................................................. 14 City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 1 ends

Introduction
Background
Commercial Cannabis is regulated in the City of Salinas by Municipal Code Chapter 5 – Public Peace and Morals under Article VII Cannabis. The City regulates the establishment and operation of a limited number of commercial cannabis businesses (23), including cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, retail storefront (dispensaries) and retail delivery services.

The City has an existing cannabis business tax, Measure L, which was approved by Salinas voters in November 2016. The tax rates vary by cannabis business type and were initially set at 5 percent of gross receipts for retail and manufacturing businesses, and $15 and $2 per square foot of canopy space for cultivation and nursery businesses. The original tax rates were scheduled to increase in 2020; however, in December 2019 the Salinas City Council voted to forgo the scheduled increase. Since 2017, the City has generated roughly $7.35 million in tax revenue.

The Salinas City Council has expressed interest in evaluating the current Salinas cannabis market to determine the strength of the businesses and identify impediments to growth including, but not limited to, taxation. To inform these discussions, the City has engaged SCI Consulting Group to perform a comprehensive, financially focused analysis of the cannabis industry in the City and prepare a Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report which makes recommendations regarding the optimal approach to taxation.

This analysis considers existing sales revenue and taxation data, analyzes any financial constraints, and considers the best practices on taxation to maximize revenue, market stability, and economic growth. Additionally, this analysis evaluates tax rates regionally to better understand competitiveness and if this is a barrier to growing the industry in the City.

Summary and Recommendations
The analysis of Salinas’ local cannabis industry indicates that it remains viable, relatively stable with the likelihood of a reasonable, limited growth over time. This is a remarkably positive finding when compared with the dynamic and challenged state of the cannabis industry statewide.

City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 2 ends

California’s cannabis industry is quite mature with existing consumer demand being met (and often exceeded) by healthy regulated and non-regulated (black market) businesses. Hence, industry growth, and the associated municipal tax revenue growth, is limited to new consumers drawn to the regulated products by improved marketing, packaging, variety, effects, and safety, as well as existing consumers transitioning from the unregulated market to the regulated market.

These forces affect all links in the supply chain (cultivation, distribution, testing, manufacturing, and retail.)
Long term, the City should understand that high land values and the availability of real estate will likely constrain growth of cultivation and manufacturing businesses within City limits. Retail businesses are limited by a slowly growing local demand (affected by new and newly legal consumer transactions), with some special opportunities for Salinas as a somewhat isolated regional City along the busy US 101 corridor.

The greatest area for significant growth for the City is in the manufacturing sector. Although this sector has matured (and possibly peaked) statewide, there is still huge opportunity to develop, market, and package, new types of products. Salinas is well poised with its proximity to very active cultivation sites in Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and even Santa Barbara Counties, along with its agricultural and industrial capacity and infrastructure.

The City’s current rates, rate structure, number and types of businesses are generally appropriate and well within California norms. The tax revenues are leveling out, becoming more predictable and reliable, with some additional growth projected as more permitted businesses become operational. The City should continue with current policies, making field condition informed, minor adjustments (as recommended below) to tax rates, permit numbers, and types of permits as the marketplace continues to evolve over the next 10 years.

Here are the primary recommendations:
 Maintain the existing gross receipts tax rate of 5 percent on retail businesses.  Reduce the existing tax to a rate between 2.5% and 3% on manufacturing businesses.  Reduce the existing tax to a rate between $7 to $10 per square-foot of canopy on cultivation businesses.
 Maintain the current limit on the number of retail businesses (three (3) delivery and = five (5) storefront).
 Award the final cultivation permit.
 Continue to support active permittees working towards becoming operational businesses.
 Take steps to foster and support growth in the manufacturing business sector, which has the greatest growth potential.
 Continue to carefully facilitate the transition from unregulated cannabis markets to regulated cannabis businesses.

City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 3 ends

 Expand on Salinas’ unique history, character, and culture to optimize all facets of the cannabis industry.
 Explore ways to increase opportunities for minority owned local businesses.

City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 4 ends

Overview of the Salinas Cannabis Market
Commercial Cannabis Business Regulation and Permitting
The City of Salinas allows all types of commercial cannabis businesses. The City issues two types of commercial cannabis business permits: Commercial Cannabis Permits (CCP) and Administrative Permits (AP). CCPs are issued for Cultivation, Delivery, Dispensary, Distribution, and Manufacturing. Administrative Permits are issued for Testing Laboratories, Small Distribution (business premises under 500 square-feet), Research and Development Facilities, and Nurseries.

Commercial Cannabis Permits
The City of Salinas allows for issuance of a maximum of 23 CCP’s. Since the available permits are limited, the City accepts applications only during designated “rounds”, allowing for applicants to competitively apply for permits. “Table 1” below shows permit quotas, active permits (permits for businesses that are either in operation or working towards operation), and operational businesses as of August 2022.

Table 1 – Commercial Cannabis Permit (CCP) Quotas
Business Type Permit Quota Active Permits Operational Businesses Cultivation 5 3 1
Delivery 3 3 3
Dispensary 5 5 3
Distribution 5 5 2
Manufacturing 5 5 2
Total 23 21 11
“Table 2” below shows the 21 businesses that have been awarded permits and are currently either operational or pursuing operational status. The updated status of the City’s 21 active CCP’s is shown below.

City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 5 ends

Table 2 – CCP: Operational Status
Business Name Type Business Status

1. CannaCruz Dispensary Operational

2. Compassionate Bay Delivery Operational

3. Golden Essentials Delivery Operational

4. Purple Trilogy Delivery Operational

5. Cypress Manufacturing Distribution Operational

6. Cypress Manufacturing Manufacturing Operational

7. Emerald Skyway, LLC Dispensary Operational

8. 710 Combinator (Grupo Flor) Manufacturing Operational

9. East of Eden (Grupo Flor) Dispensary Operational

10. Flor X (Grupo Flor) Distribution Operational

11. Flor Cultivation Cultivation Partially Operational

12. Emerald Skyway Manufacturing, LLC Manufacturing Not Operational

13. Emerald Skyway Cultivation, LLC Cultivation Not Operational

14. E7 Salinas, LLC Dispensary Not Operational

15. E7 Salinas, LLC Distribution Not Operational

16. E7 Salinas, LLC Manufacturing Not Operational

17. Horizon Salinas, LLC Dispensary Not Operational

18. Horizon Salinas, LLC Distribution Not Operational

19. Cypress Manufacturing Cultivation Cultivation Not Operational

20. Sanborn Distribution Distribution Not Operational

21. Sanborn Manufacturing Manufacturing Not Operational Eleven (11) businesses are now operational, and ten (10) businesses are still working towards operational status, two of which have previous indefinite extensions. The delays have involved challenges related to physical building improvements and site selection as well as state licensing challenges and newly issued permits.

Administrative Permits
Unlike CCPs, there are no limits on how many administrative permits can be issued for Commercial Cannabis Businesses. Administrative permits can be applied for at any time and do not require review by the Cannabis Selection Committee. Obtaining and maintaining an Administrative Permit is considerably simpler and less expensive in comparison to the CCP process. Nonetheless, applicants for Administrative Permits are still required to obtain a state license. “Table 3” below shows the Administrative Permits that have been issued and remain active (business is operational or is working towards operational status).

City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 6 ends

Table 3 – Administrative Permits: Operational Status
Business Name Type Business Status

1. OPM Holdings Dispensary Operational

2. ProForma Labs Delivery Operational

3. American Biotech Testing Delivery Operational
In addition to the three businesses listed above, a number of other applicants have been awarded Administrative Permits but have abandoned the venture prior to achieving operational status.

There have been no Administrative Permit submittals in 2022.

Cannabis Tax Revenue
Measure L, adopted by the voters of Salinas in November 2016, requires certain Commercial Cannabis Businesses to pay a commercial cannabis business tax every quarter, beginning January 1, 2017. The original tax rates were scheduled to increase in 2020; however, in December 2019 Council voted to forgo the scheduled increase. Therefore, the rates listed below remain in effect. “Table 4” lists the rates levied on each business type and the maximum tax rates.

Table 4 – Cannabis Tax Rates
Business Type Current Rate Maximum Rate
Retail (Dispensary) 5% of Gross Receipts 10% of Gross Receipts Retail Delivery 5% of Gross Receipts 10% of Gross Receipts Manufacturing 5% of Gross Receipts 10% of Gross Receipts Cultivation $15/sf of Canopy $25/sf of Canopy
Nursery $2/sf of Canopy $5/sf of Canopy
Distribution No Tax No Tax
Testing No Tax No Tax
“Table 5” below shows cannabis revenue by businesses type that conducted commercial cannabis operations from 2017 through 2022. The taxes collected to date have been generated by just nine (9) businesses. “Table 6” compares the total cannabis industry tax revenue from 2017 through 2022.

City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 7 ends

Table 5 – Salinas Cannabis Industry Tax Revenue by Business Type (2017-2022) Business Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Delivery $38,989 $102,917 $117,138 $197,395 $134,572 $16,600 Dispensary IA $285,475 $949,762 $1,124,674 $1,221,626 $333,647 Cultivation IA IA IA $8,679 $73,539 $19,200
Manufacturing $335,380 $482,057 $561,413 $511,284 $669,760 $168,926 Total $374,369 $870,449 $1,628,314 $1,842,033 $2,099,497 $538,373 IA = business type was inactive during this term, i.e. not yet conducting commercial operations and paying the cannabis business tax
Table 6 – Salinas Cannabis Industry Tax Revenue (2017-2022) Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 TOTAL + / -
2017 $374,369
2018 $120,737 $143,839 $328,894 $276,979 $870,449 133%
2019 $343,833 $432,000 $409,701 $442,779 $1,628,314 87% 2020 $470,916 $503,765 $357,502 $509,849 $1,842,033 13% 2021 $536,363 $525,501 $514,153 $449,941 $2,025,958 10% 2022 $448,552 $362,404 $810,956
Q = Quarter (three-month period)
The Cannabis Business Tax was a new tax revenue for the City beginning in 2017. The total cannabis tax revenue significantly increased between 2018 and 2019 as new business within the City became operational. In recent years, tax revenue has continued to increase, although at a much lower rate, increasing by approximately 13% from 2019 to 2020 and 10% from 2020 to 2021.

Analysis of the tax revenue collected through the first two quarters of 2022 indicate that the cannabis revenues are beginning to flatten out as detailed in the Figure below. Tax revenues for Q1 and Q2 of 2022 are down 16% (-$153,138) compared to the previous two quarters in 2021 (Q3 and Q4). The reduction in revenue for 2022 is partially caused by late tax payments, as four business were late on their 2022 Q2 tax payments to the City at the time of writing this report.

City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 8 ends

Figure 1 – Historic Tax Revenue
However, further analysis of the historical revenues by business type indicates a significant decline in retail revenues. Retail tax revenues for Q1 and Q2 of 2022 are down 21% (-$137,242) compared to the previous two quarters in 2021 (Q3 and Q4). This decline is most likely attributed to the current economic conditions and high interest rates, which may have resulted in the reduction of cannabis purchases. Nonetheless, retail tax revenue should restore to previous levels when the economy recovers.

While tax revenues for 2022 are currently on a projection to decline, tax revenues for the remaining 2022 quarters (Q3 and Q4) and 2023 have the potential to surpass the previous year’s total if additional businesses initiate operations.
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Cannabis Industry Tax Revenue by Quarter
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 9 ends

Analysis of Current State and Local Tax Structure
The legal, regulated cannabis industry in California has seen significant growth and investment over the past few years. Despite this growth, the regulated industry has fallen well below its initial projections due to its inability to eliminate the illegal market.

The combination of regulatory and licensing costs and administrative burdens; high taxes, and local bans affecting large areas of the State are all factors that have contributed to significant delay to full emergence of the legal industry. Further, legalization has resulted in huge increases in cultivation both legal and (albeit counter-intuitively) illegal, while demand has only grown slightly, resulting in an overproduction of wholesale cannabis and a huge drop in prices, thus a reduction in profitability.

Most estimates indicate that 65 percent to 80 percent of all cannabis commerce in California is still unregulated, and it will likely take 10 or more years of enforcement, incentives, and capitalistic forces to reduce that to a more reasonable 10%.

It is expected that the California cannabis industry will continue to undulate dynamically under market and regulatory forces, but that these will decrease over time.

State Cannabis Taxes
Approval of Proposition 64 in November 2016 by California voters imposed two new cannabis taxes: a state excise tax of 15% on purchases of cannabis or cannabis products and a wholesale cultivation tax of $9.25 per dry-weight ounce of cannabis flower and $2.75 dry-weight ounce of leaves or trim. The State cultivation tax, which is indexed for inflation, increased to $10.08 per ounce and $3.00 per ounce for the 2022 calendar year. In addition to the cultivation and excise tax, commercial cannabis sales are subject to the sales and use tax, which is 9.25% in the City of Salinas.

City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 10 ends

Assembly Bill 195
On June 30, of 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 195, which amends the California Revenue and eliminates the cultivation tax 1 . Effective July 1, 2022, harvested cannabis that enters the commercial cannabis market is no longer subject to the cultivation tax.

Under AB-195, the cannabis excise tax will be maintained at the current rate of 15% for the next three years but can be increased up to 19% beginning in 2025 to recoup losses from the elimination of the cultivation taxes. Furthermore, effective January 1, 2023, the collection of the excise tax will shift from distributors to retailers.

Local Cannabis Tax Rate
During the early years of legalization, high local cannabis tax rates were very common across the State and for the most part acceptable amongst the cannabis industry when profit margins were high. Some of the early adopters in the State to legalize cannabis, approved cannabis tax rates across all license types as high as 10% - 15% of gross receipts and $25/sf for cultivation. However, as the regulated cannabis industry has matured, the combination of increased market competition, rising licensing and regulatory costs, and the collapse of wholesale cannabis prices has pushed the industry to the brink of collapse.

Local tax rates have been trending downward and stabilizing to a sustainable rate across the State due in part to local governments trying to maintain a competitive edge with neighboring jurisdictions who have legalized commercial cannabis and recognizing the need to grant tax relief for cannabis businesses.
“Table 7” below compares the current Salinas cannabis tax rates to the rates of nearby jurisdictions. For the most part, Salinas’ current tax rates are comparable and competitive with nearby cities.
1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB195 City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 11 ends

Table 7 – Local Cannabis Tax Rates, Nearby and Selected Cities Cultivation Nursery Manufacture Distributor Testing Retail Hollister $7/sf 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Marina 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Merced 2.5% 2.5% $2.50/sf 2% $0/sf 7%
Monterey1 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4%
Pacific
Grove1 NA NA NA NA NA 6%
Salinas $15/sf $2/sf 5% NA NA 5%
Santa Cruz 7% 7% 7% 2% 1% 7%
Seaside 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 6%
Watsonville $10/sf $1/sf 2.5% NA NA 5%
1 Measures on November 2022 General Election
Retailers
Retailers (Storefront and Delivery) are the most localized of all cannabis business types because they serve the needs of a particular geographic area. While cultivators, manufacturers, and distributors have the ability to sell their products to other businesses throughout the State, retailers serve the local community by selling cannabis products directly to customers. As a result, the growth and success of retailers in Salinas is directly related to the market demand for cannabis in the area.

For the purpose of determining how many retailers Salinas can support, it is reasonable to assume that demand for cannabis in the City will remain constant. Therefore, permitting too many cannabis retailers will not increase demand or create new consumers but will simply result in lower sales volumes per retailer. In other words, the local retail market will eventually reach a saturation point.

Cannabis retailers have been operating in the City since 2018. Retailers are currently capped at five (5) storefront businesses and three (3) delivery businesses. As of August 2022, the City has issued all available CCPs for both business types; however, two of the storefront businesses are not currently operational.

A common metric used to determine how many retail businesses a jurisdiction can support assumes one retailer for every 15,000 to 20,000 people. With eight (8) permitted retailers, the City currently has a population per retailer of 19,500. Under this assumption, the City has reached the market density of retailers that they can reasonably support.

City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 12 ends

Table 8 – Nearby Cannabis Retailers
City/County Population Retailers Population per Retailer Capitola 10,090 2 5,045
Marina 40,100 3 13,367
Salinas 156,177 8 19,522
Santa Cruz 65,011 5 13,002
Seaside 34,063 7 4,866
Watsonville 52,398 3 17,466
Next, we analyzed the retail tax revenues collected by the City to determine whether the retail cannabis market has reached its saturation point. From 2017 to 2020, the tax revenue collected by the City steadily increased as six of the City’s eight permitted retail businesses became operational. Revenue from 2020 to 2021 increased by only 3 percent, which may indicate that the market is nearing the saturation point. Furthermore, tax revenues for Q1 and Q2 of 2022 are down 21 percent compared to the previous two quarters in 2021 (Q3 and Q4); however, this is most likely to due to current state of the economy which is impacting retail purchases by consumers as previously discussed.

Table 9 – Salinas Retail Cannabis Tax Revenue (2017-2022) Year Retail Delivery TOTAL + / -
2017 IA $38,989 $38,989
2018 $285,475 $102,917 $388,392 896%
2019 $949,762 $117,138 $1,066,900 175%
2020 $1,124,674 $197,395 $1,322,069 24%
2021 $1,221,626 $134,572 $1,356,199 3%
2022* $501,709 $16,600 $518,309
* Tax revenue reported through two quarters
Although the retail industry in Salinas as a whole has experienced growth up until this year, the delivery businesses have not been as successful in comparison to storefront retailers, as indicated by the tax revenue collected by the City. Delivery businesses are in direct competition with the storefront retailers in the City, licensed delivery services from other jurisdictions, and Salinas is somewhat isolated from other populous areas, which makes this a difficult business model to be successful.

City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 13 ends

Based on the analysis above, there are indications that retail cannabis market in the City is reaching its saturation point. Given that there are two permitted retail businesses who are not yet operational, it is recommended that the City not consider permitting additional retail locations at this time and instead, continue to support the active permittees working towards becoming operational businesses. Lastly, SCI recommends that the City maintain the current gross receipts tax rate of 5 percent on retail. This rate is currently competitive with nearby municipalities as well as the standard rate SCI typically recommends to municipalities that we work with.

Cultivation
In recent years, the cannabis cultivation sector has faced some unprecedented challenges. An oversupply of cultivated cannabis has resulted in a crash in wholesale cannabis prices. This, combined with high local and state taxes has pushed the industry towards collapse. The elimination of the state cultivation tax provides much needed tax relief to cannabis cultivators.

However, tax reform may be required locally in Salinas as well.

Cannabis cultivation in Salinas is currently taxed at $15 per square-foot of canopy space, which is much higher than many neighboring jurisdictions as detailed in “Table 6” above. A square -footage tax has advantages and disadvantages for Salinas cannabis businesses. The advantage is that cultivators know their total annual tax liability upfront and have the ability to plan and budget accordingly. The downside is that a square-foot based tax can impact the cost of production and fails to account for profitability of the business since the business is required to pay the tax regardless of productive output.

To better understand overall impact of the square-footage tax, SCI has developed on model to convert the City’s square-foot tax to an equivalent gross receipt tax. A study conducted by BOTEC Analysis for the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board conservatively estimated the average indoor cultivation yield at 38.6 grams/ft2 /harvest, or 0.085 pounds/ft2 /harvest2 . Indoor
cultivators typically average four (4) harvest cycles per year, which equates to 0.34 pounds/f t
2 /year. For a 10,000 square foot cultivation facility, this means they can produce around 3,400 pounds per year.
2 Jonathan Caulkins, Matthew Cohen, and Luigi Zamarra, “Estimating Adequate Licensed Square Footage for Production,” Prepared by BOTEC Analysis Corporation for Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board, https://lcb.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/BOTEC%20reports/5a_Cannabis_Yields-Final.pdf.

City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 14 ends

According to Cannabis Benchmarks, the current average indoor price of cannabis is $1,364 per pound3
. For our model, we have conservatively estimated the price at $1,000 per pound which equates to roughly $3.4 million in gross receipts for a 10,000 square foot facility. At the City’s current tax rate of $15 per square foot, the annual cannabis tax owed is $150,000, so the gross receipt tax equivalent works out to roughly 4.41% ($3.4 million/$150,000).

The tables below model the gross receipt tax equivalent for tax rates at $15, $10, and $7:

Table 10 – Gross receipt Tax Equivalent at $15 per sqft Canopy
(sf)
Yield @

0.34lb/sf/yr
Price per
lb
Gross
Receipts
Tax @
$15/sf
Gross Receipt
Equivalent

10,000.00 3400.00 $1,000 $3,400,000 $150,000 4.41%
Table 11 – Gross receipt Tax Equivalent at $10 per sqft Canopy
(sf)
Yield @

0.34lb/sf/yr
Price per
lb
Gross
Receipts
Tax @
$10/sf
Gross Receipt
Equivalent

10,000.00 3400.00 $1,000 $3,400,000 $100,000 2.94%
Table 12 – Gross receipt Tax Equivalent at $7 per sqft
Our analysis indicates that the City’s current rate of $15 per square foot is much higher than nearby municipalities. Typically, SCI recommends a tax rate at $7 per square-foot for cultivation businesses. In order to remain competitive with nearby municipalities and to provide tax relief, SCI recommends that the City consider lowering the cultivation tax to a rate between $7 and $10 per square foot. While this reduction will result in a reduction in tax revenues from each business, it may incentivize the three non-operational businesses to commence operations. 3 https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/cannabisindex/
Canopy (sf) Yield @

0.34lb/sf/yr
Price per
lb
Gross
Receipts
Tax @
$7/sf
Gross Receipt
Equivalent
10,000.00 3400.00 $1,000 $3,400,000 $70,000 2.06%
City of Salinas
Cannabis Taxation Recommendation Report
August 2022

Page 15 ends

Manufacturing
The cannabis manufacturing industry continues to innovate and expand, offering the greatest area for significant growth within the cannabis industry. Although this sector has matured (and possibly peaked) very rapidly statewide, there is still significant opportunity to develop, market, and package new types of products. As the regulated market continues to slowly expand, we anticipate the demand for manufactured cannabis products to increase as well.

Due to Salinas’ close proximity to very active cultivation sites in Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and even Santa Barbara Counties, along with its agricultural and industrial- capacity and infrastructure make it an attractive location for prospective businesses. However, low vacancy rates within the industrial zones in the City may impede growth. Furthermore, expansion of the cannabis manufacturing sector could potentially create an increased demand and price for the limited number of available properties, resulting in the displacement of existing businesses, which may not align with the City’s goals.

Cannabis manufacturing businesses are currently capped at five (5) business within the City. The City has issued all five permits, with two (2) operational businesses and three (3) businesses who have not yet started operations. Overall, the two manufacturing businesses have displayed steady growth with tax revenues fluctuating quarter to quarter but increasing each year. Despite this growth, these businesses have expressed concerns with profitability related to the existing tax rates associated with manufacturing in the City.

Manufacturing businesses are currently taxed at 5 percent of gross receipts. Our analysis indicates that this rate is comparable and competitive to other nearby municipalities, but there are surrounding cities with lower rates. Typically, SCI recommends a tax rate between 2% - 3% of gross receipts for manufacturing businesses. SCI recommends that the City consider lowering the manufacturing tax to a rate between 2.5% and 3%. While this reduction will result in a reduction in tax revenues from each business, it may incentivize the remaining three non-operational businesses to commence operations.

AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL CANNABIS

TAXATION RATES
Megan Hunter, Community Development Director &
Courtney Grossman, Planning Manager
City Council
October 18, 2022
Background
• February 15th – Annual report on commercial cannabis industry presented to Council (business owners expressed concern about taxation rates for cultivation and manufacturing)
 In response staff contracted with SCI Consulting Group to prepare a report on recommended taxation rates.
• August 23rdth – SCI presented their findings to the City Council.  Council referred the item to the Cannabis Subcommittee for a recommendation.

SCI Findings
 Cannabis revenue is declining across the state.
 City’s “current rates, rate structure, number and types of businesses are generally appropriate and well within California norms”.
 Recommend a reduction to the tax rates for manufacturing to between 2.5% and 3% of gross receipts and for cultivation to between $7 to $10 per square foot of canopy and cultivation.

Cannabis Subcommittee
Recommendations and Findings
 Cannabis Subcommittee met on September 22, 2022
 Recommended rate reduction of 2.5% of gross receipts for manufacturing and a rate of $7 per square foot of canopy for cultivation.  No other rates were recommended for amendment
 The Subcomittee’s recommendation is based on
 the testimony presented by business owners with concern about taxation rates for cultivation and manufacturing; and
 SCI’s recommended rate reduction for manufacturing and cultivation.

Cannabis Tax Rates – Current and Proposed
Business Type Current Rate Maximum Rate Proposed Rate
Retail (Dispensary) 5% of Gross Receipts 10% of Gross Receipts No Change Retail Delivery 5% of Gross Receipts 10% of Gross Receipts No Change Manufacturing 5% of Gross Receipts 10% of Gross Receipts 2.5% of Gross Receipts Cultivation $15/sf of Canopy $25/sf of Canopy $7/sf of Canopy Nursery $2/sf of Canopy $5/sf of Canopy No Change
Distribution No Tax No Tax No Change
Testing No Tax No Tax No Change
Fiscal and Sustainability Impact
Business Type Base Year
2021
$10 sq ft/
3%
$8.50 sq ft/

2.5%
$7 sq ft/

2.5%
Cultivation $73,539 $49,026 $41,672 $34,318
Manufacturing $669,760 $401,856 $334,880 $334,880
Total Revenue $743,299 $450,882 $376,552 $369,198
Potential Loss N/A $292,417 $366,747 $374,101
Recommendation
A motion to adopt a Resolution to amend Commercial Cannabis taxation rates to 2.5% of gross receipts for manufacturing and $7 per square foot of canopy for cultivation pursuant to Section 19A.10.330 of the Salinas Municipal Code.

Existing rates for all other commercial cannabis business types are retained.

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-554, Version: 1
2021 Application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program and 5-Year Plan Amendment Approve a Resolution authorizing the submission of the City’s annual application for 2021 Permanent Local Housing Allocation funds to the California Department of Housing and Community Development; submission of an amended Permanent Local Housing Allocation 5-Year Plan; appropriation of 2021 PLHA funds to General Ledger account fund SB2 (2951); and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute all applicable agreements.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/12/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2022
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: MEGAN HUNTER, DIRECTOR
THROUGH: ROD POWELL, PLANNING MANAGER
BY: CRISTINA GONZALEZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST
TITLE: 2021 APPLICATION TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERMANENT
LOCAL HOUSING ALLOCATION PROGRAM AND 5-YEAR PLAN
AMENDMENT.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution authorizing:

1. Submission of the City’s annual application for 2021 Permanent Local Housing Allocation funds to the California Department of Housing and Community Development; and

2. Submission of an amended Permanent Local Housing Allocation 5-Year Plan; and

3. Appropriation of 2021 PLHA funds to General Ledger account fund SB2 (2951); and

4. The City Manager or designee to execute all applicable agreements.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In June 2020, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the submission of an initial application and required 5-Year Plan (Plan) for California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) program funds. In May 2021, following submission and approval of the City’s initial Plan, agreements to allow access to first-year 2019 funds in the amount of $1,006,847 were executed. Shortly thereafter, the City submitted a streamlined HCD PLHA application for its 2020 allocation of $1,564,592 on September 14, 2021.

Standard Agreements related to this Year 2 funding have yet to be issued by HCD.

On August 17, 2022, HCD released a NOFA for 2021 PLHA funds advising of an intended City of Salinas allocation of $1,722,182. In response staff have prepared the required application and an accompanying amended Plan to allow for utilization of the funds in alignment with the City Council’s goals and previously approved commitments. The amended Plan will reallocate the percentages of funds among selected eligible actives for years two (2020) and three (2021). This necessary modification is in response to the executed MOUs between the City and Shangri-La Industries LLC Page | 2
and Step Up on Second Street, Inc. for the development, property management and case management at the Sanborn Inn and Salinas Inn Homekey projects. Through these MOUs, the City intends to commit a total of $1,014,000 of PLHA funds to the Sanborn Inn project and $220,000 to the Salinas Inn project towards the provision of permanent supportive housing opportunities for unhoused City residents. The amended Plan also allows for each Homekey project to access three (3) years of necessary HCD Homekey match funds.

BACKGROUND:

In 2017, Governor Brown signed a 15-bill housing package aimed at addressing the state’s housing shortage and high housing costs. Specifically, it included SB 2, referred to as the “Building Homes and Jobs Act.” SB 2 establishes a permanent, on-going source of funding dedicated to promoting and facilitating affordable housing development. SB2 funding is secured through a fee that is imposed at the time of recording of every real estate instrument, paper or notice for each single real estate transaction on a parcel of property. Recording fees typically range from $75 to $225 dependent upon the nature and scope of each property transaction. Sales transactions for single-family homes are exempt from this fee.

Annual PLHA funding allocations will vary from year to year as revenue is dependent upon annual transactions associated with an ever-fluctuating real estate market. To date, approximately $335 million in statewide PLHA-related revenue has been earmarked for local government affordable housing grants as a result of this fee. SB 2 prescribes that the identified real estate transaction revenue collected for the PLHA program be deposited into a State Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund (Fund). Seventy percent (70%) of the Fund has been made available to HCD to assist local governments in eligible housing-related projects and programs.

DISCUSSION:

Prior HCD PLHA NOFAs have been issued February 26, 2020 and May 2, 2021. In response, the City, as an entitlement jurisdiction, submitted the required application and been awarded respective allocations of $1,006,847 (2019) and $1,564,592 (2020). For year three (2021), the City anticipates an allocation of $1,722,182. HCD plans to provide five years (2019-2023) of PLHA funding to eligible, compliant jurisdictions. Only jurisdictions that have submitted a recent Housing Element Annual Progress Report and maintain an HCD-compliant Housing Element are eligible to receive PLHA funds.

PLHA program funds are intended to fund housing-related projects and programs that assist in addressing the unmet housing needs of local communities. Based upon engagement and analysis, the City’s Plan includes varying annual percentage allocations of PLHA funds to four (4) eligible activities:
 Extremely low-, very low-, low-, or moderate-income affordable housing development  Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) production
 Matching Local or Regional Housing Trust Funds
 Homeless Services Assistance
Page | 3
HCD grants cities with flexibility to craft and amend a Plan that allows jurisdictions to best meet and respond to the immediate and long-term housing needs within the community. With this in mind and in recognition of the fluid and ever-changing environment of homeless services funding, staff recommend the submission of an allowable Plan amendment reflective of the current, critical homeless needs within the community and to address the City Council’s prior commitment of PLHA funds to the Sanborn Inn and Salinas Inn Homekey projects. In essence, the Plan amendment continues to fund each of the original Plan’s eligible activities but provides for necessary adjustments of the categorical activity percentage used for each of the Plans annual allocations. More specifically, the Plan amendment seeks to adjust percentages in Plan years 2 and 3 to recognize and fulfill the City’s prior commitment to the Homekey projects and to continue the commitment of funding towards the development of low-income multifamily rental units. Plan years 1, 4 and 5 remained unchanged.

As required by HCD, the City initiated the required 10-day public notice on October 8, 2022, inviting public review and comment. Copies of applicable documents were made available online, in person at the City’s Permit Center, and through email request. The City’s Housing and Land Use Committee received an initial presentation and review of this item on October 11, 2022, in anticipation of the required Council public hearing scheduled for October 18, 2022.

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).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Application and acceptance of the City’s 2021 PLHA allocation and amendment to the City’s 5-Year PLHA Plan supports City of Salinas 2022-2025 Strategic Plan Goals and Strategies of Housing/Affordable Housing and Effective and Culturally Responsive Government.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This agenda item is administered by the CDD’s Housing and Community Development Division in consultation with the City Attorney and in coordination with the Finance Department.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

This item has no impact to the City’s General Fund. PLHA funds will be appropriated to existing General Ledger account fund SB2 (2951).

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
State HCD PLHA Resolution
PLHA FY 2021 Application
PLHA 5-Year Plan
PLHA 5-Year Plan Amendment

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ____________ (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SALINAS CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A 2021 APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERMANENT LOCAL HOUISNG ALLOCATION PROGRAM AND 5-YEAR PLAN AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the HCD is authorized to provide up to $335 million under the SB 2 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program Formula Component from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for assistance to Cities and Counties (as described in Health and Safety Code section 50470 et seq. (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017 (SB 2)); and WHEREAS, the City of Salinas (City) is an eligible local government that can apply for the PLHA Program to administer one or more eligible activities; and WHEREAS, HCD may approve funding allocations for PLHA Program, subject to the terms and conditions of the Guidelines, NOFA, Program requirements, the Standard Agreement and other contracts between HCD and PLHA grant recipients; and WHEREAS, the City has previously submitted 2019 and 2020 applications for funding as well as a required 5-Year Plan to advance affordable housing development, facilitate ADU production, establish a Local Housing Trust Fund, and expand homeless services; and WHEREAS, the City intends to submit an annual PLHA application to request its third year 2021 allocation in the amount of $1,722,182 to the HCD; and WHEREAS, the City intends to amend its 5-Year Plan to reallocate allocated percentages of funds among selected eligible actives for years two (2020) and three (2021); and WHEREAS, HCD requires a 10-day comment period for the amendment and the City published a notice on October 8, 2022 in the Californian newspaper with a public comment period ending on October 18, 2022; and
WHEREAS, The City’s Housing and Land Use Committee received a presentation and reviewed this item on October 11, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the City to submit its third-year application for 2021 PLHA funds to HCD; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes City to submit the City’s Amended 5-Year Plan to HCD for review and approval and it represents and certifies that it will use all such funds in a manner consistent and in compliance with all applicable state and federal statutes, rules, regulations, and laws, including without limitation all rules and laws regarding the PLHA Program, as well as any and all contracts the City may have with HCD as outlined in the State Resolution; and

Page 2 of 2 ends

BE IT FURTHER RESOVLED that the City Council hereby authorizes the appropriation of 2021 PLHA funds to General Ledger account fund SB2 (2951); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or designee to execute all applicable agreements.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 18th day of October 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED
_________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
1 Resolution Number: __________
City of Salinas

AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION OF CITY OF SALINAS

AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION AND ADOPTING THE PLHA PLAN FOR THE

PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING ALLOCATION PROGRAM
A necessary quorum and majority of the Council members of City of Salinas, a municipality (“Applicant”) hereby consents to, adopts and ratifies the following resolution:

A. WHEREAS, the Department is authorized to provide up to $335 million under the SB 2 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program Formula Component from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for assistance to Cities and Counties as described in Health and Safety Code section 50470 et seq. (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017 (SB 2)).

B. WHEREAS the State of California (the “State”), Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) issued a re-opening of Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) dated 02/26/2020 under the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program;
C. WHEREAS the City of Salinas is an eligible Local government who has applied for program funds to administer one or more eligible activities, or a Local or Regional Housing Trust Fund to whom an eligible Local government delegated its PLHA formula allocation.

D. WHEREAS the Department may approve funding allocations for PLHA Program, subject to the terms and conditions of the Guidelines, NOFA, Program requirements, the Standard Agreement and other contracts between the Department and PLHA grant recipients;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. If Applicant receives a grant of PLHA funds from the Department pursuant to the above referenced PLHA NOFA, it represents and certifies that it will use all such funds in a manner consistent and in compliance with all applicable state and federal statutes, rules, regulations, and laws, including without limitation all rules and laws regarding the PLHA Program, as well as any and all contracts Applicant may have with the Department.

2. Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to receive a PLHA grant, in an amount not to exceed the five-year estimate of the PLHA formula allocations, as stated in Appendix C of the current NOFA $6,041,082 in accordance with all applicable rules and laws.
2 3. Applicant hereby agrees to use the PLHA funds for eligible activities as approved by the Department and in accordance with all Program requirements, Guidelines, other rules and laws, as well as in a manner consistent and in compliance with the Standard Agreement and other contracts between the Applicant and the Department.

4. Pursuant to Section 302(c)(4) of the Guidelines, Applicant’s PLHA Plan for the 2019-2023 Allocations is attached to this resolution, and Applicant hereby adopts this Amended PLHA Plan and certifies compliance with all public notice, public comment, and public hearing requirements in accordance with the Guidelines.

5. If applicable: Applicant certifies that it was delegated by _____________________ to submit an application on its behalf and administer the PLHA grant award for the formula allocation of PLHA funds, pursuant to Guidelines Section 300(c) and 300(d), and the legally binding agreement between the recipient of the PLHA funds and the Applicant is submitted with the PLHA application.

6. If applicable: Applicant certifies that it has or will subgrant some or all of its PLHA funds to another entity or entities. Pursuant to Guidelines Section 302(c)(3), “entity” means a housing developer or program operator, but does not mean an administering Local government to whom a Local government may delegate its PLHA allocation.

7. If applicable: Applicant certifies that its selection process of these subgrantees was or will be accessible to the public and avoided or shall avoid any conflicts of interest.

8. If applicable: Pursuant to Applicant’s certification in this resolution, the PLHA funds will be expended only for eligible Activities and consistent with all program requirements.

9. If applicable: Applicant certifies that, if funds are used for the acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of for-sale housing projects or units within for-sale housing projects, the grantee shall record a deed restriction against the property that will ensure compliance with one of the requirements stated in Guidelines Section 302(c)(6)(A),(B) and (C).

10. If applicable: Applicant certifies that, if funds are used for the development of an Affordable Rental Housing Development, the Local government shall make PLHA assistance in the form of a low-interest, deferred loan to the Sponsor of the Project, and such loan shall be evidenced through a Promissory Note secured by a Deed of Trust and a Regulatory Agreement shall restrict occupancy and rents in accordance with a Local government-approved underwriting of the Project for a term of at least 55 years.

11. Applicant shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Standard Agreement, the PLHA Program Guidelines and any other applicable SB 2 Guidelines published by the Department.
3 12. City Manager or Community Development Director is/are authorized to execute the PLHA Program Application, the PLHA Standard Agreement and any subsequent amendments or modifications thereto, as well as any other documents which are related to the Program or the PLHA grant awarded to Applicant, as the Department may deem appropriate.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Salinas this 18th day of October 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

ABSTENTIONS:

NOES:

ABSENT:
________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor

CERTIFICATE OF THE ATTESTING OFFICER
The undersigned, Officer of Patricia M. Barajas does hereby attest and certify that the [foregoing / attached] Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of the City which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

ATTEST:

Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Final Filing Date: October 31, 2022
at 4:00 P.M. PST
Permanent Local Housing Allocation
(PLHA) Formula Allocation
Application Form for Previous Awardees
State of California
Governor, Gavin Newsom
Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Secretary
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Gustavo Velasquez, Director
Department of Housing and Community Development
Program Design and Implementation, PLHA Program
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 150, Sacramento, CA 95833 PLHA Program Email: [email protected]
2022 PLHA NOFA Formula Allocation Amount: $1,722,182 Allowable Local Admin (5%): $86,109.00 Which NOFA year(s) are you applying for with this application? 2022 OnlyDid Applicant receive an award from the 2020 and/or 2021 Formula Allocation NOFA? Title: Community Development Dir
State: CA
Eligible Applicant Type: EntitlementLocal Government Recipient of PLHA Formula Allocation: Salinas Zip Code:

Instructions: If the Local Government Recipient of the PLHA Formula Allocation delegated its PLHA formula allocation to another Local Government in its 2020 application, the Applicant (for which information is required below) continues to be the administering Local Government, which received the award. The PLHA award will be made to the Applicant (upon meeting threshold requirements) and the Applicant is responsible for meeting all program requirements throughout the term of the Standard Agreement.

Eligible Applicants §300
93901
Auth Rep Name:
[email protected]
§300(a) and (b) Eligible Applicants for the Entitlement and Non-Entitlement formula component described in Section §100(b)(1) and (2) are limited to the metropolitan cities and urban counties allocated a grant for the federal fiscal year 2017 pursuant to the federal CDBG formula specified in 42 USC, Section §5306 and Non-entitlement local governments. Applicant: City of Salinas Steven S. Carrigan
City:

Yes
§302(c)(5) Applicant certifies that the Plan has not reallocated more than 10 percent of funds among Activities from the approved 5-year Plan included in the PLHA program Standard Agreement, Exhibit E. No N/A
Yes
§302(c)(8) If a program income reuse plan was not submitted with the 2020 application, has Applicant attached a program income reuse plan describing how repaid loans and/or accrued interest will be reused for eligible activities specified in Section 301?File Name: Application and Plan Adoption Local Government Formula Allocation Rev. 2/17/22
This streamlined application form is limited to Applicants who applied for and received an award from the 2020 and/or 2021 Formula Allocation NOFA.

Yes
If a reallocation of more than 10 percent of funds was made, Applicant has attached an amended Plan that has been discussed and approved at a publicly-noticed meeting of the governing body.

State: CA Zip: 93901 Monterey
§302(c)(2) Applicant certifies that submission of the applicati on was authorized by the governing board of the Applicant.

Threshold Requirements
Title:
93901
§302(b) Applicant and Delegating Local Government have submitted the current or prior year's Annual Progress Report to the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Government Code Section 65400. Yes CA
County:

Contact Email:

City Manager
200 Lincoln Avenue
(831) 758-7334
Salinas
Auth Rep. Email: Phone: [email protected]
§300(e) Applicant does not have uncommitted PLHA funds greater than permitted by Section 300(e). Yes§503(b) Applicant has submitted the PLHA Annual Report by July 31, 2021 (if applying before July 31, 2022), or has submitted the PLHA Annual Report due by July 31, 2022 (if applying on or after July 31, 2022). Yes
Date
Certifications
Steven S. Carrigan
Authorized Representative Printed Name
City Manager
Title
On behalf of the entity identified below, I certify that: The information, statements and attachments included in this application are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct and I possess the legal authority to submit this application on behalf of the entity identified in the signature block.

Signature
File Name: Reuse Plan Program Income Reuse Plan describing how repaid loans or accrued interest will be used for eligible activities in Section 301. Narrative uploaded to HCD? N/A Address:Has applicant received their 2021 NOFA funds? Yes Based on the requirements in guideline section 300(e), how much has the applicant committed? $1,990,505 §302(c)(4)(D) Evidence that the Plan was authorized and adopted by resolution by the Uploaded to HCD? Contact Phone:

City: Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Yes
Zip Code:
(831) 758-7204
State:
§302(a) Housing Element compliance: Applicant and Delegating Local Government's if applicable Housing Element was adopted by the Local Government’s governing body by the application submittal date and subsequently determined to be in substantial compliance with state Housing Element Law pursuant to Government Code Section Salinas
Yes
Contact Name:Address: City:Address: 65 West Alisal Street Megan Hunter
PLHA Page 1 Formula Allocation Application
PLHA Grant ‐ 5 Year Plan
§302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of the Activity.

At the beginning of every calendar year, the City solicits proposals for its HUD Funds (CDBG and HOME Investment Partnership) to prepare the Annual Action Plan. In 2020, the City received two proposals for gap financing for the Parkside (Senior Housing) and Sun Rose (Permanent Supportive Housing) Apartments. Sun Rose Apartments was awarded funding through a No Place Like Home Grant. Parkside Apartments submitted a TCAC application in March that was not awarded, but will re-submit on July 1st. This is the first phase of a twophase project that will net eighty (80) units. The City anticipates providing financing to these developments, which already have received entitlement approval in the first year. The City anticipates following the same process established with HUD program funding and will transmit a Request for Proposal (RFP) in January/February of each calendar year. Proposals will be evaluated for readiness and then formally rated and ranked. The City will submit funding recommendations to City Council in May in conjunction with HUD recommendations.

In this way, the PLHA funding can be fully leveraged with other City sources. In addition, the City will proactively recruit developers for two City sites and one County property and will host sessions to highlight these areas for interested developers in the Fall of 2020. RFPs for these sites will be circulated in early 2021. 210
§302(c)(4)(E)(iv) Period of Affordability for the Proposed Affordable Rental Housing Activity (55 years required for rental housing projects)
55 Years 55 Years 55 Years 55 Years 55 Years
§302(c)(4) Plan
§301(a)(1) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of multifamily, residential live-work, rental housing that is affordable to extremely low-,very low-, low-, or moderate-income households, including necessary Operating subsidies. §302(c)(4)(E)(i) Provide a description of how allocated funds will be used for each proposed Affordable Rental Housing Activity.

The City will allocate PLHA funding to provide gap financing for construction of multi-family and senior affordable rental housing projects targeted to households that are 60% AMI or below. These projects must be “shovel-ready” and have already applied for or secured other financing, such as applying to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) for either 4% or 9% tax credits. If multiple projects meet these criteria, the City will conduct a formal Request for Proposal and each application will be rated and ranked similar to the City’s HUD HOME Investment Partnership Program. Qualified projects may be recommended for future years. In addition, the City may use its HUD funding (CDBG & HOME) to complement the PLHA funding. Any committed PLHA funding will not be distributed until all other financing is in place. For Activity 1, gap financing for multi-family or senior housing, the City will allocate 75% of the PLHA funds in the first year, 40% in the second year, 50% in the third year, and 40% in the fourth and fifth years. 224
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Projected Number of Households Served 50 40 40 40 40 TOTAL
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Unmet share of the RHNA at the AMI Level 50 40 50 40 44 §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Area Median Income Level Served 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% §302(c)(4)(E)(i) Percentage of Funds Allocated for the
Proposed Affordable Rental Housing Activity 75.00% 40.00% 50.00% 40.00% 40.00% §302(c)(4)(A) Describe the manner in which allocated funds will be used for eligible activities.

The City of Salinas (City) will allocate HCD Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds to four (4) activities: 1) providing gap financing for construction of multi-family and senior affordable rental housing projects within the City, targeted to households that are 60% AMI or below; 2) creating an ADU Program which provides revolving loans to moderate or low-income households to accelerate ADU production; 3) contributing funds, beginning in the second year, for a Regional Housing Trust Fund to be established through the HCD Local Housing Trust Fund (“LHTF”) Program, in collaboration with the County of Monterey; 4) supporting the implementation of the Continuum of Care’s 10 Year Plan to Reduce Homelessness, including rapid rehousing, rental assistance, and supportive/case management services to assist in securing or retaining housing; operational and capital costs for the Chinatown Navigation Center and the emergency shelter; and new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing. §302(c)(4)(B) Provide a description of the way the Local government will prioritize investments that increase the supply of housing for households with incomes at or below 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).

The City will allocate all Activity 1 funding to provide gap financing for construction of multi-family and senior affordable rental housing projects within the City, targeted to households that are 60% AMI or below. Similarly, funding allocated for Activity 3, the Regional Trust Fund, will provide loans and/or grants to affordable housing developers producing affordable rental housing also targeted to households that are 60% AMI or below. There are multiple affordable housing projects in our 5-year pipeline including Parkside Apartments (Senior Housing), Sun Rose Apartments (Permanent Supportive Housing), Laurel on Monterey County property (Permanent Supportive Housing), Division Street Mixed-Use Project on City property (Family Housing), and Alisal Marketplace Apartments (Family Housing) on City property. All units produced through these projects that receive PLHA funding will be occupied by households at or below 60% AMI. Over the next five (5) years, the City anticipates this funding will contribute to the production of at least five (5) affordable housing complexes for Activity 1 and three (3) housing complexes for Activity 3. All new units will have an affordability restriction of 55 years. The City will prioritize affordable housing projects at 60% AMI or below that are essentially “shovel ready”. If multiple projects meet these criteria, the City will conduct a formal Request for Proposal and each application will be rated and ranked similar to the City’s HUD HOME Investment Partnership Program.

Complete the table below for each proposed Affordable Rental Housing Activity to be funded with 2019-2023 PLHA allocations. If a single Activity will be assisting households at more than one level of Area Median Income, please list the Activity as many times as needed to capture all of the AMI levels that will be assisted, but only show the percentage of annual funding allocated to the Activity one time (to avoid double counting).

Funding Allocation Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
§302(c)(4)(C) Provide a description of how the Plan is consistent with the programs set forth in the Local Government’s Housing Element.

Activities Detail (Activities Detail (Must Make a Selection on Formula Allocation Application worksheet under Eligible Activities, §301))

Page 1 of 3 ends

§302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of the Activity.

The City has committed to participating in the County of Monterey’s Application to HCD for the Local Housing Trust Fund Program (LHTF) in order to establish a Regional Housing Trust Fund (RHTF). The application is due after the submittal of the City PLHA application. For this reason, the City has allocated $200,000 of unrestricted funds toward the required match for the RHTF in the first year. Prior to application submittal, the City will work with the County and participating jurisdictions to refine the trust fund guidelines, determine administrative support, and establish funding parameters based upon contribution. The City and County have already agreed that the Regional Trust Fund will provide loans and/or grants for affordable rental housing targeted to households that are 60% AMI or below. It is anticipated the County will submit the application for the LHTF before the August 3rd deadline. If funding is awarded, the City will work with the County to promote the RHTF as a funding resource for affordable housing. Similar to PLHA development funding, the Regional Housing Trust Fund will be geared toward shovel-ready multi-family affordable rental housing projects. All new units created with these funds will maintain a 55-year affordability period. If the Regional Housing Trust Fund is not established, PLHA funds for this activity will get shifted towards activity one, the development of multi-family and senior affordable housing rental projects.
100
§302(c)(4)(E)(iv) Period of Affordability for the Proposed Activity (55 years required for rental housing projects) 55 55 55 55 224
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Projected Number of Households Served 20 20 30 30 TOTAL
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Unmet share of the RHNA at AMI Level 50 40 50 40 44 §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Area Median Income Level Served 60% 60% 60% 60% §302(c)(4)(E)(i) Percentage of Funds Allocated for the
Proposed Activity 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00%
Type of Affordable Housing Activity
RentalRentalRentalRental
This year the City will partner with the County in submitting an application through the HCD’s Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program to establish a Regional Housing Trust Fund (RHTF). The City will contribute $200,000 of unrestricted funding for the required match this year. Once established, the City will allocate 30% of future PLHA funding in the 2nd through 5th year to the RHTF.

Complete the table below for each proposed Activity to be funded with 2019-2023 PLHA allocations. If a single Activity will be assisting households at more than one level of Area Median Income, please list the Activity as many times as needed to capture all of the AMI levels that will be assisted, but only show the percentage of annual funding allocated to the Activity one time (to avoid double counting).

Funding Allocation Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
§302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of each Affordable Rental and Ownership Housing project.

In 2018, the City was awarded a Corporation for National Service VISTA Grant in part to facilitate the production of ADUs. Since then, the City adopted a five-year development impact fee exemption for ADUs and have streamlined ADU regulations. The City has also applied for LEAP Funding for the development of pre-approved plans for ADUs and promotional marketing and have assigned a City navigator for interested homeowners. The City would use the PLHA funding to complement these efforts by establishing a new revolving loan fund to help moderate income households finance ADU development. The City also plans to partner with banks to leverage our resources and increase the fund’s loan capacity. The City will create the loan fund guidelines and secure additional funding in the first year. Once the program guidelines have been established and adopted by City Council, the City will begin the pre-qualifying process for top applicants in year two (2) of this plan. Funding will be made available to households at 120% of the AMI or below. The City will award financing to qualified applicants on a “first come first served” basis beginning in Fall of 2021. §301(a)(3) Matching portions of funds placed into Local or Regional Housing Trust Funds. 0%
30 §302(c)(4)(E)(iv) Period of Affordability for the Proposed Activity (55 years required for rental housing projects) Percentage of Funds Allocated for
Affordable Owner-occupied Workforce
Housing
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Provide a description of how allocated funds will be used for the proposed Activity. §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Projected Number of Households Served 10 10 10 403
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Percentage of Funds Allocated for Each Affordable Housing Activity 10% 10% 10%
TOTAL
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Unmet share of the RHNA at AMI Level 75 75 75 75 103 §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Area Median Income Level Served 120% 120% 120% Type of Affordable Housing Activity ADU ADU ADU
The City's HCD PLHA Grant Funds will be used to begin a new Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Financing Program in the second year of this five-year Plan. The PLHA ADU allocation will be used to establish a revolving loan fund for predevelopment costs and/or hard construction costs directly associated with the construction of new ADUs within City limits. The City is proposing to allocate 10% of the HCD PLHA Grant on years two (2), four (4), and five (5).

Complete the table below for each proposed Affordable Rental and Ownership Housing Activity to be funded with 2019-2023 PLHA allocations. If a single Activity will be assisting households at more than one level of Area Median Income, please list the Activity as many times as needed to capture all of the AMI levels that will be assisted, but only show the percentage of annual funding allocated to the Activity one time (to avoid double counting).

Funding Allocation Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
§301(a)(2) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of Affordable rental and ownership housing, including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), that meets the needs of a growing workforce earning up to 120 percent of AMI, or 150 percent of AMI in high-cost areas. ADUs shall be available for occupancy for a term of no less than 30 days.
30%
Percentage of Funds Allocated for
Affordable Owner-occupied Workforce
Housing
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Provide a description of how allocated funds will be used for each proposed Affordable Rental and Ownership Housing Activity.

Page 2 of 3 ends

File Name: Plan Adoption Attached and on USB? Yes
§302(c)(4)(D) Evidence that the Plan was authorized and adopted by resolution by the Local jurisdiction and that the public had an adequate opportunity to review and comment on its content.
§301(a)(10) Fiscal incentives made by a county to a city within the county to incentivize approval of one or more affordable housing Projects, or matching funds invested by a county in an affordable housing development Project in a city within the county, provided that the city has made an equal or greater investment in the Project. The county fiscal incentives shall be in the form of a grant or low-interest loan to an affordable housing Project. Matching funds investments by both the county and the city also shall be a grant or low-interest deferred loan to the affordable housing Project.
§301(a)(9) Homeownership opportunities, including, but not limited to, down payment assistance. §301(a)(8) Efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant homes and apartments. §302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of the Activity.

The City is a HUD Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) entitlement jurisdiction and plans to follow the same application process to support organizations that receive PLHA funds for homeless services. In January/February of each calendar year, the City will circulate a Request for Proposals (RFP) for homeless related services to implement the CoC’s 10 Year Plan to Reduce Homelessness. Proposals will be rated and ranked by late Spring. Based upon these rankings and ESG funding gaps, City staff will send PLHA funding recommendations to City Council for consideration in May. It is anticipated that most PLHA funding will be used for emergency shelter, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing, since other funding sources for these categories of work are limited. §301(a)(7) Accessibility modifications in Lower-income Owner-occupied housing. 375
§302(c)(4)(E)(iv) Period of Affordability for the Proposed Activity (55 years required for rental housing projects) §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Projected Number of Households Served 75 75 75 75 75 TOTAL
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Unmet share of the RHNA at AMI Level
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Area Median Income Level Served 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% §302(c)(4)(E)(i) Percentage of Funds Allocated for the
Proposed Activity 20.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00%
Type of Activity for Persons Experiencing or At Risk of Homelessness
Emergency
Shelters
Navigation
Centers
Emergency
Shelters
Transitional
Permanent
Complete the table below for each proposed Activity to be funded with 2019-2023 PLHA allocations. If a single Activity will be assisting households at more than one level of Area Median Income, please list the Activity as many times as needed to capture all of the AMI levels that will be assisted, but only show the percentage of annual funding allocated to the Activity one time (to avoid double counting).

Funding Allocation Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
§301(a)(6) Assisting persons who are experiencing or At risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing.
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Provide a description of how allocated funds will be used for the proposed Activity.

The City proposes to use funding to support the implementation of the Continuum of Care’s 10 Year Plan to Reduce Homelessness (currently under development) including rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services to assist in securing or retaining housing; operating and capital costs for the Chinatown Navigation Center and the emergency shelter; and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing. In the first year, the City proposes to use 20% of its funding for these services, particularly to limit the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on housing security. In years two through five, the City will allocate 15% for these services. §301(a)(5) Capitalized Reserves for Services connected to the preservation and creation of new permanent supportive housing. §301(a)(4) Matching portions of funds available through the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of HSC Section 34176.

Page 3 of 3 ends

§301(a)(10) Fiscal incentives made by a county to a city within the county to incentivize approval of one or more affordable housing Projects, or matching funds invested by a county in an affordable housing development Project in a city within the county, provided that the city has made an equal or greater investment in the Project. The county fiscal incentives shall be in the form of a grant or low-interest loan to an affordable housing Project. Matching funds investments by both the county and the city also shall be a grant or low-interest deferred loan to the affordable housing Project. §301(a)(9) Homeownership opportunities, including, but not limited to, down payment assistance. §301(a)(8) Efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant homes and apartments. §301(a) Eligible activities are limited to the following: Included? Eligible Activities, §301
§301(a)(3) Matching portions of funds placed into Local or Regional Housing Trust Funds.

PLHA Formula 5-year Plan - Amendment Rev. 5/7/21
§301(a)(2) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable rental and ownership housing, including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), that meets the needs of a growing workforce earning up to 120 percent of AMI, or 150 percent of AMI in high-cost areas. ADUs shall be available for occupancy for a term of no less than 30 days. §301(a)(1) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of multifamily, residential live-work, rental housing that is affordable to Extremely low-,Very low-, Low-, or Moderate-income households, including necessary operating subsidies. §301(a)(7) Accessibility modifications in Lower-income Owner-occupied housing. §301(a)(6) Assisting persons who are experiencing or At-risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid re-housing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing. §301(a)(5) Capitalized Reserves for services connected to the preservation and creation of new permanent supportive housing. §301(a)(4) Matching portions of funds available through the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of HSC Section 34176.

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
PLHA Page 1 Formula Allocation Application
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Unmet share of
the RHNA at the AMI Level
Note: complete for year 2019 &
2020 only
At the beginning of every calendar year, the City solicits proposals for its HUD Funds (CDBG and HOME Investment Partnership) to prepare the Annual Action Plan. In 2020, the City received two proposals for gap financing for the Parkside Manor Phase I (Senior Housing) and Sun Rose (Permanent Supported Housing) Apartments. Parkside Manor Phase I Apartments submitted a TCAC application in March of 2020 that was not awarded, but re-submitted on July 1, 2020. Parkside Manor Phase I was awarded TCAC funds and is currently working in finalizing the construction of the eighty (80) units complex.This project also received PLHA funds from the City and is expected to be completed by the end of 2022. The City is collaborating on two potential housing projects 855 East Laurel Drive (Multifamily housing) and Division Street Project (Mixed Use/Mulitfamily housing).The City anticipates following the same process established with HUD program funding and will transmit a Request for Proposal (RFP) in January/February of each calendar year. The City may also potentially self direct the funds to best fit the needs of the community and upcoming housing projects. Proposals will be evaluated for project readiness and then formall rated and ranked
55 Years 55 Years 55 Years 55 Years 55 Years 55 Years
§302(c)(4)(E)(iv) Period of
Affordability for the Proposed
Affordable Rental Housing
Activity (55 years required for
rental housing projects)
55 Years 55 Years 55 Years 55 Years 55 Years 55 Years 55 Years 55 Years §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Projected
Number of Households Served 80 80 40 40
274 274
TOTAL
548
240
§302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of the Activity. §302(c)(4)(E)(i) Percentage of
Funds Allocated for the
Proposed Affordable Rental
Housing Activity

75.0% 0.0% 70.0% 40.0% 40.0%
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Area Median
Income Level Served 60% 60% 60% 60%
§302(c)(4)(C) Provide a description of how the Plan is consistent with the programs set forth in the Local Government’s Housing Element.

The Housing Element aims to expand the City’s affordable housing inventory by a minimum of 700 units (50 extremely low, 100 very low, 150 low, and 400 moderate income units) by 2023. Through Action H-9, the City’s aims to provide gap-financing for nonprofit housing developments. For this reason, the City will allocate 75% of the HCD PLHA grant funding in year one (1),70% in year three (3), and 40% in year four (4) and five (5). The aforementioned Division Street project, falls within the Alisal Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area, supporting Action H-5 of the City’s Housing Element. Additionally, Policy H-3.5 encourages the provision of housing and services for individuals experiencing homelessness through the use of state and federal programs. The City is proposing to leverage 20% of HCD PLHA funds in year one (1), 85% in year two (2), 25% in year three (3), and 15% in year four (4) and five (5) for best practices such as rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services, operating and capital costs to permenant supportive housing projects to reduce homelessness. A Local Housing Trust Fund will also support Action H-9 of the City’s housing element, which encourages the City to create its own Local Housing Trust Fund to facilitate housing development activities. Moreover, the Local Trust Fund will assist the City in reaching the additional 2,093 housing units needed to meet the City’s Local Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goal.
§301(a)(1) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of multifamily, residential live-work, rental housing that is affordable to extremely low-,very low-, low-, or moderateincome households, including necessary Operating subsidies. §302(c)(4)(E)(i) Provide a detailed and complete description of how allocated funds will be used for each proposed Affordable Rental Housing Activity. §302(c)(4) Plan Rev. 5/7/21
§302(c)(4)(A) Describe the manner in which allocated funds will be used for eligible activities.

The City of Salinas (City) will allocate HCD Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds to four (4) activities: 1) providing gap financing for construction of multi-family and senior affordable rental housing projects within the City, targeted to households that are 60% AMI or below; 2) creating an ADU Program which provides revolving loans to moderate or low-income households to accelerate ADU production; 3) contributing funds, beginning in the fourth year, for a Local Housing Trust Fund to be established through the HCD Local Housing Trust Fund (“LHTF”) Program; 4) supporting the implementation of the Continuum of Care’s 10 Year Plan to Reduce Homelessness, including rapid rehousing, rental assistance, and supportive/case management services to assist in securing or retaining housing; operating and capital costs for Navigation Center and the emergency shelter (Chinatown Navidation Center and Share Center) and new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing (Step Up in Salinas, Step Up on Fairview, and Step Up on Sanborn). §302(c)(4)(B) Provide a description of the way the Local government will prioritize investments that increase the supply of housing for households with incomes at or below 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).

The City will allocate all Activity 1 funding to provide gap financing for construction of multi-family and senior affordable rental housing projects within the City, targeted to households that are 60% AMI or below. Similarly, funding allocated for Activity 3, the Regional Trust Fund, will provide loans and/or grants to affordable housing developers producing affordable rental housing also targeted to households that are 60% AMI or below. There are multiple affordable housing projects in our 5-year pipeline including Parkside Manor Apartments (Senior housing), 855 East Laurel Drive (100% affordable rental Multifamily housing project), Division Street Project is on City owned property (Mixed Use/Mulitfamily housing), and Alisal Marketplace Apartments (Mixed Use/Mulitfamily housing) is on City owned property. All units produced through these projects that receive PLHA funding will be occupied by households at or below 60% AMI. Over the next five (5) years, the City anticipates this funding will contribute to the production of at least five (5) affordable housing complexes for Activity 1 and two (2) housing complexes for Activity 3. All new units will have an affordability restriction of 55 years. The City will prioritize affordable housing projects at 60% AMI or below that are essentially “shovel ready”. If multiple projects meet these criteria, the City will conduct a formal Request for Proposal and each application will be rated and ranked similar to the City’s HUD HOME Investment Partnership Program.

Activities Detail (Activities Detail (Must Make a Selection on Formula Allocation Application worksheet under Eligible Activities, §301)) The City will allocate PLHA funding to provide gap financing for construction of multi-family and senior affordable rental housing projects targeted to households that are 60% AMI or below. These projects must be “shovel-ready” and have already applied for or secured other financing, such as applying to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) for either 4% or 9% tax credits. If multiple projects meet these criteria, the City will conduct a formal Request for Proposal and each application will be rated and ranked similar to the City’s HUD HOME Investment Partnership Program. Qualified projects may be recommended for future years. In addition, the City may use its HUD funding (CDBG, HOME, and ARPA) to complement the PLHA funding. Any committed PLHA funding will not be distributed until all other financing is in place. For Activity 1, gap financing for multi-family or senior housing, the City will allocate 75% of the PLHA funds in the first year, 70% in the third year, and 40% in the fourth and fifth year.

Funding Allocation Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Complete the table below for each proposed Affordable Rental Housing Activity to be funded with 2019-2023 PLHA allocations. If a single Activity will be assisting households at more than one level of Area Median Income, please list the Activity as many times as needed to capture all of the AMI levels that will be assisted, but only show the percentage of annual funding allocated to the Activity one time (to avoid double counting).

PLHA Page 2 302(c)(4) Plan
For the complete response to this section, see page description 6 §302(c)(4)(E)(i) Provide a detailed and complete description of how allocated funds will be used for each proposed Affordable Rental and Ownership Housing Activity. Percentage of Funds Allocated for Affordable Owneroccupied Workforce Housing 30% The City's HCD PLHA Grant Funds will be used to begin a new Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Financing Program in the second year of this five-year Plan. The PLHA ADU allocation will be used to establish a revolving loan fund for predevelopment costs and/or hard construction costs directly associated with the construction of new ADUs within City limits. The City is proposing to allocate 10% of the HCD PLHA Grant on years two (2), four (4), and five (5).

Funding Allocation Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Unmet share of
the RHNA at AMI Level
Note: complete for year 2019 &
2020 only
403
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Provide a detailed and complete description of how allocated funds will be used for the proposed Activity. Percentage of Funds Allocated for Affordable Owneroccupied Workforce Housing 0% The City will submit an application in 2023 through HCD's Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program to establish a Housing Trust Fund (LHTF). The City will contribute $200,000 of unrestricted funding. Once established, the City will allocate 30% of future PLHA funding in the forth (4) and fifth (5) year to the LHTF.

Funding Allocation Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
In 2018, the City was awarded a Corporation for National Service VISTA Grant in part to facilitate the production of ADUs. Since then, the City adopted a five-year development impact fee exemption for ADUs and have streamlined ADU regulations. The City has also applied for LEAP Funding for the development of pre-approved plans for ADUs and promotional marketing and have assigned a City navigator for interested homeowners. The City would use the PLHA funding to complement these efforts by establishing a new revolving loan fund to help moderate income households finance ADU development. The City also plans to partner with banks to leverage our resources and increase the fund’s loan capacity. The City will create the loan fund guidelines and secure additional funding in the third year. Once the program guidelines have been established and adopted by City Council, the City will begin the pre-qualifying process for top applicants in year three (3) of this plan. Funding will be made available to households at 120% of the AMI or below. The City will award financing to qualified applicants on a “first come first served” basis beginning in Spring 2023. §301(a)(3) Matching portions of funds placed into Local or Regional Housing Trust Funds. §302(c)(4)(E)(iv) Period of
Affordability for the Proposed
Activity (55 years required for
rental housing projects)
§302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of each Affordable Rental and Ownership Housing project. §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Projected
Number of Households Served 10 10 10 30
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Percentage of
Funds Allocated for Each
Affordable Housing Activity
10% 10% 10%
806
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Area Median
Income Level Served 120% 120% 120% TOTAL
Complete the table below for each proposed Affordable Rental and Ownership Housing Activity to be funded with 2019-2023 PLHA allocations. If a single Activity will be assisting households at more than one level of Area Median Income, please list the Activity as many times as needed to capture all of the AMI levels that will be assisted, but only show the percentage of annual funding allocated to the Activity one time (to avoid double counting).

Type of Affordable Housing
Activity ADU ADU ADU
403
§301(a)(2) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of Affordable rental and ownership housing, including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), that meets the needs of a growing workforce earning up to 120 percent of AMI, or 150 percent of AMI in high-cost areas. ADUs shall be available for occupancy for a term of no less than 30 days.

PLHA Page 3 302(c)(4) Plan
Emergency
Shelter
Operating
Supportive/
Case
Manageme
nt Services
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Provide a detailed and complete description of how allocated funds will be used for the proposed Activity. 30% 30% 30%
Type of Activity for Persons
Experiencing or At Risk of
Homelessness
§301(a)(5) Capitalized Reserves for Services connected to the preservation and creation of new permanent supportive housing. §301(a)(4) Matching portions of funds available through the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of HSC Section 34176. 60 §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Area Median
Income Level Served
Rental:

Developme
nt

30.00% 30.00%
§302(c)(4)(E)(iv) Period of
Affordability for the Proposed
Activity (55 years required for
rental housing projects)
55 55
§302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of the Activity. §302(c)(4)(E)(i) Percentage of
Funds Allocated for the
Proposed Activity
The City will create a Local Trust Fund and provide loans and/or grants for affordable rental housing targeted to households that are 60% AMI or below. The City will work on submitting an application in 2023 for the LHTF. If funding is awarded, the City will promote the LHTF as a funding resource for affordable housing projects within City Limits. Similar to PLHA development funding, the Locall Housing Trust Fund will be geared toward shovel-ready multi-family affordable rental housing projects. All new units created with these funds will maintain a 55-year affordability period. 548
Supportive/
Case
Manageme
nt Services
Emergency
Shelter
Operating
Emergency
Shelter
Operating
TOTAL §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Area Median
Income Level Served 30% 30%
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Percentage of
Funds Allocated for the
Proposed Activity

20.00% 85.00% 25.00% 15.00% 15.00%
Funding Allocation Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
The City proposes to use funding to support the implementation of the Continuum of Care’s 10 Year Plan to Reduce Homelessness, including rapid rehousing, rental assistance, and supportive/case management services to assist in securing or retaining housing; operating and capital costs for Navigation Center and the emergency shelter (Chinatown Navidation Center and Share Center) and new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing (Step Up in Salinas, Step Up on Fairview, and Step Up on Sanborn).

In the first year, the City proposes to use 20% of its PLHA funding for these services, particularly to limit the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on housing security. The City will allocate 85% in year two (2), 25% in year three (3), and 15% in year four(4) and five (5).

Developme
nt
§301(a)(6) Assisting persons who are experiencing or At risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing. §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Projected
Number of Households Served 30 30
Type of Affordable Housing
Activity
TOTAL
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Unmet share of
the RHNA at AMI Level
Note: complete for year 2019 &
2020 only
274 274
PLHA Page 4 302(c)(4) Plan
§301(a)(10) Fiscal incentives made by a county to a city within the county to incentivize approval of one or more affordable housing Projects, or matching funds invested by a county in an affordable housing development Project in a city within the county, provided that the city has made an equal or greater investment in the Project. The county fiscal incentives shall be in the form of a grant or low-interest loan to an affordable housing Project. Matching funds investments by both the county and the city also shall be a grant or low-interest deferred loan to the affordable housing Project. §301(a)(9) Homeownership opportunities, including, but not limited to, down payment assistance. §301(a)(8) Efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant homes and apartments. §302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of the Activity. 625
§302(c)(4)(E)(iv) Period of
Affordability for the Proposed
Activity (55 years required for
rental housing projects)
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Projected
Number of Households Served 75 300 100 75 75
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Unmet share of
the RHNA at AMI Level
Note: complete for year 2019 &
2020 only
421 421 842
§301(a)(7) Accessibility modifications in Lower-income Owner-occupied housing.

During the first year, the City is focused on expanding services at the Chinatown Navigation Center by providing shelter for up to fifty individuals experiencing homelessness through the installation of a Sprung shelter and five (5) trailers. The City has also partnered with the County on supporting the County’s only emergency shelter and similarly was able to expand capacity through the addition of trailers. PLHA funding would be used to continue support of these efforts. In addition, first year funding will focus on transitioning Project Roomkey motel guests (a state program for medically fragile and elderly homeless individuals to reduce the spread of COVID-19) into stable housing. The City will continue to coordinate with the Coalition for Homeless Service Providers (Continuum of Care, or CoC, Collaborative Applicant) to program funding to address homeless service gaps in the City. The City is a HUD Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) entitlement jurisdiction and plans to follow the same application process to support organizations that receive PLHA funds for homeless services. In January/February of each calendar year, the City will circulate a Request for Proposals (RFP) for homeless related services to implement the CoC’s 10 Year Plan to Red ce Homelessness Proposals ill be rated and ranked b late Spring Based pon these rankings and ESG f nding gaps Cit staff ill send PLHA f nding recommendations to PLHA Page 5 302(c)(4) Plan
For a
complete
response
to this
section,
see page 6
§301(a)(2) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of Affordable rental and ownership housing, including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), that meets the needs of a growing workforce earning up to 120 percent of AMI, or 150 percent of AMI in high-cost areas. ADUs shall be available for occupancy for a term of no less than 30 days. §302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of each Affordable Rental and Ownership Housing project.

In 2018, the City was awarded a Corporation for National Service VISTA Grant in part to facilitate the production of ADUs. Since then, the City adopted a five-year development impact fee exemption for ADUs and have streamlined ADU regulations. The City has also applied for LEAP Funding for the development of pre-approved plans for ADUs and promotional marketing and have assigned a City navigator for interested homeowners. The City would use the PLHA funding to complement these efforts by establishing a new revolving loan fund to help moderate income households finance ADU development. The City also plans to partner with banks to leverage our resources and increase the fund’s loan capacity. The City will create the loan fund guidelines and secure additional funding in the third year. Once the program guidelines have been established and adopted by City Council, the City will begin the pre-qualifying process for top applicants in year three (3) of this plan. Funding will be made available to households at 120% of the AMI or below. The City will award financing to qualified applicants on a “first come first served” basis beginning in Spring 2023. §301(a)(6) Assisting persons who are experiencing or At risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing. §302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of the Activity.

During the first year, the City is focused on expanding services at the Chinatown Navigation Center by providing shelter for up to fifty individuals experiencing homelessness through the installation of a Sprung shelter and five (5) trailers. The City has also partnered with the County on supporting the County’s only emergency shelter and similarly was able to expand capacity through the addition of trailers. PLHA funding would be used to continue support of these efforts. In addition, first year funding will focus on transitioning Project Roomkey motel guests (a state program for medically fragile and elderly homeless individuals to reduce the spread of COVID-19) into stable housing. The City will continue to coordinate with the Coalition for Homeless Service Providers (Continuum of Care, or CoC, Collaborative Applicant) to program funding to address homeless service gaps in the City. The City is a HUD Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) entitlement jurisdiction and plans to follow the same application process to support organizations that receive PLHA funds for homeless services. In January/February of each calendar year, the City will circulate a Request for Proposals (RFP) for homeless related services to implement the CoC’s 10 Year Plan to Reduce Homelessness. Proposals will be rated and ranked by late Spring. Based upon these rankings and ESG funding gaps, City staff will send PLHA funding recommendations to City Council for consideration in May. It is anticipated that most PLHA funding will be used for emergency shelter, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing, since other funding sources for these categories of work are limited.

PLHA Page 6 302(c)(4) Plan
Submit Application and Amend
the City’s PHLA Plan
2021 Application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program and 5-Year Plan Amendment.

Rod Powell, Planning Manager
Community Development Department
October 18, 2022
Executive Summary
 Senate Bill 2 (SB-2) established PLHA
 Source of funding for affordable housing within defined categories  5-Year Plan
 2019: $1,006,847
 2020: $1,564,592
 2021: $1,722,182
 Additional 2021 Application Requirements
 5-Year Plan Amendment
Background
PLHA Plan amendment to the allocation percentages in years 2 and 3 due to the commitment of PLHA funds to Homekey projects.

Step Up in Sanborn Step Up in Fairview
58 Units
$1,014,000 PLHA Funds
Supportive Services / Rental Subsidies
43 Units
$220,000 PLHA Funds
Supportive Services / Rental Subsidies
Discussion – Current 5-Year PHLA Plan
City of Salinas PLHA 5-Year Plan Allocation (2019-2023) Activity Description Percent Budget Per Year
1 2 3 4 5
Program Administration 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Development of multifamily rental at 60% or below AMI 75% 40% 50% 40% 40% ADU Financing – Grants & Loans 0% 10% 0% 10% 10%
Matching Funds for Local Housing Trust Funds 0% 30% 30% 30% 30% Homeless Services – Rapid Rehousing, Rental Assistance, Case Management & Housing Navigation, Navigation Centers &
Emergency Shelters, Transitional & Permanent Supportive Housing 20% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Discussion – Amended 5-Year PHLA Plan
City of Salinas PLHA 5-Year Plan Allocation (2019-2023 ) Activity Description Percent Budget Per Year
1 2 3 4 5
Program Administration 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Development of multifamily rental at 60% or below AMI 75% 0% 70% 40% 40% ADU Financing – Grants & Loans 0% 10% 0% 10% 10%
Matching Funds for Local Housing Trust Funds 0% 0% 0% 30% 30% Homeless Services – Rapid Rehousing, Rental Assistance, Case Management & Housing Navigation, Navigation Centers &
Emergency Shelters, Transitional & Permanent Supportive Housing 20% 85% 25% 15% 15%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Public Notice/Engagement
 10-Day Public Comment Notice published on October 8, 2022  Housing & Land Use Committee meeting on October 11, 2022 Department Coordination
Administered by CDD Housing & Community Development Division in coordination with:
City Attorney
Finance Department
CEQA
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.

Strategic Plan 2022-25 Goals and Strategies
 Housing/Affordable Housing
 Effective and Culturally Responsive Government
Fiscal & Sustainability Impact
 No General Fund Impact
 Annual allocations must be expended within 5 years
Recommendation
Motion to approve a Resolution authorizing:

1. submission of City’s annual application for 2021 PLHA funds to State HCD; and

2. submission of an amended PLHA 5-Year Plan; and

3. Appropriation of 2021 PLHA funds to General Ledger
account fund SB2 (2951); and

4. the City Manager or designee to execute all applicable agreements
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-573, Version: 1
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - Downtown Exemption [Salinas Municipal Code Section 17-8(d)] No specific action is recommended. The City Council is asked to consider whether the exemption provided to residential developments in the downtown area [Salinas Municipal Code section 17-8(d)] should be repealed.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/12/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2022
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: STEVEN S. CARRIGAN, CITY MANAGER
CHRISTOPHER A. CALLIHAN, CITY ATTORNEY

MEGAN HUNTER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

LISA BRINTON, ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIRECTOR
TITLE: INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE—DOWNTOWN
EXEMPTION [SALINAS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17-8(d)]
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

No specific action is recommended.

The City Council is asked to consider whether the exemption provided to residential developments in the downtown area [Salinas Municipal Code section 17-8(d)] should be repealed.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On September 13, 2022, Community Development Department staff presented an Administrative Report to the City Council on the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and the Downtown Area Exemption.1 During the September 13, 2022, City Council meeting, Council members Barrera and Rocha requested that that exemption provided to residential developments in the downtown area (“downtown exemption”) be brought back to the City Council for further discussion and consideration.

BACKGROUND:

The downtown exemption is set out in Section 17-8(d) of the Salinas Municipal Code, as follows:
“This article shall not apply to any of the following:
…

1 A copy of the September 13, 2022, Staff Report and attachments are included with this Staff Report for reference.

Page | 2
(d) Residential developments located within the downtown area, unless the City Council by resolution determines that based on market conditions, the provisions of this article will be applied in the downtown area.”
The “downtown area” is defined at Section 17-7(l) of the Salinas Municipal Code, as follows:
“(l) ‘Downtown Area’ means the are within the boundaries of the Central City Overlay District as defined per Zoning Code [section] 37-40.300.” For reference, the map provided in Zoning Code Section 37-40.300 is provided below. To be clear, the downtown exemption applies to all areas within the area outlined in the bolded black line. The Downtown Core Area (shaded in grey) is within the boundaries of the downtown exemption.

As referenced in the September 13, 2022, Staff Report, the downtown exemption that encompasses the Central City Overlay District was incorporated into the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance based on the findings of a 2017 Housing Target Market Analysis which acknowledged the untested residential development potential within the Downtown Area. Based on that analysis, the Page | 3
Downtown Area was exempted from the inclusionary requirements applicable elsewhere in the city.2
In preparation for the City Council’s discussion of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, generally, the Community Development Department commissioned an update to the 2017 Housing Target Market Analysis to reflect current market conditions. While the 2022 update provided only initial findings in advance of a more comprehensive update of the analysis, the update supports the 2017 fundings and preliminary concludes “that the inclusionary housing exemption should be extended and reconsidered at the time of the Housing Element Update.”3 The 2017 analysis found that:
 There is substantial demand for near-term ownership and rental residential projects in Downtown.
 Consumer preference exists for market rate infill housing opportunities.  There is traction for Downtown adaptive reuse projects.  There are significant market risks to Downtown housing development including crime/public safety, homelessness, lack of open space, low school performance, traffic, and an untested market.
 The City should incorporate housing incentives that might contribute to development cost reductions to improve the market for downtown development including the exemption to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
2022 HTMA Update found that:
 Implementing inclusionary housing in the Downtown Area would constrain the current momentum of residential development in the Downtown as the early adopters establish proof of market in this nascent environment.
 The housing market in Salinas has become more expensive since the onset of the Covid19 pandemic.  Home ownership is becoming less affordable as housing prices continue to increase, rental units generally present a more affordable option for residents.  Current construction costs are extremely high.
 Market rate rental and ownership RD-60 (density of 60 units per acre) prototypes both have a negative residual value land value (the difference between a project’s high construction costs and its lower market value).
 Micro-rental units show the best project feasibility.

2 On September 13, 2022, public testimony was given that the downtown exemption expired following five (5) years from the adoption date of the inclusionary housing ordinance. That is not correct. Neither the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance nor the Inclusionary Housing Guidelines have an automatic expiration provision related to any of their provisions. As stated by the Community Development Director, however, it is a best practice to review and to update the Ordinance and the Guidelines, as needed, every five (5) years. 3 August 30, 2022, Memorandum from Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. titled “HTMA Downtown 2022 Update—Initial Findings—August 2022; EPS #222102, page 1.

Page | 4
Evidence of HTMA findings is the limited number of residential units that have been developed in the Downtown since 2017 even with the incentives provided under the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance. Recognizing that the conversion of older, in some cases historic, buildings is costly, the City established an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance in 2018 that relaxes or eliminate identified development standards to incentivize the conversion of older, underutilized commercial buildings to residential use in the Central City Overlay District. Even with these incentives only 69 units have been permitted and are currently under construction; 300 Main Street (Bruhn Building) with 19 units and 301 Main (Rabobank Building) with 50 units. A Site Plan for 123 W. Alisal (The Californian Building) with 40 units was approved but expired as the applicants found the proposed project financially infeasible.

During their September 13, 2013, presentation, Community Development staff indicated that given current workload constraints and the City Council’s current direction related to other priority projects they could begin work on a comprehensive update to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Guidelines, including the downtown exemption, in mid-2023. That effort would require robust community engagement including, for example, reinstitution of a Technical Advisory Committee to include community members and housing advocates, among others.

ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL
The downtown exemption has been brought back to the City Council for consideration specifically at the request of Council members Barrera and Rocha. With respect to the downtown exemption, the City Council may take the following actions:

1. Leave the downtown exemption in place pending a more comprehensive review and update of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Guidelines as a part of the Housing Element Update, scheduled to begin in mid-2023.

2. Repeal the downtown exemption. The City Council has two means by which it may repeal the downtown exemption.
a. Repeal the downtown exemption based on findings supported by an analysis that, based on market conditions, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Guidelines should be applied in the downtown area. (Salinas Municipal Code Section 17-8(d).) Staff does not recommend the City Council choose this option as there is no analysis in the record to support the repeal of the downtown exemption based on market conditions. To the contrary, the 2022 update to the 2017 Housing Target Market Analysis at least preliminarily concludes that based upon current market conditions the downtown exemption should remain in place. Based upon the current record, the City Council could not make sufficient findings to support approval of a Resolution to repeal the downtown exemption based upon Salinas Municipal Code Section 17-8(d).
b. Repeal Section 17-8(d) in its entirety, thereby removing it from the Municipal Code. This action would remove this subsection from the Municipal Code in its Page | 5
entirety thereby eliminating the downtown exemption. This action would also eliminate the City Council’s ability later approve a Resolution that based on then existing market conditions that the exemption should be re-applied to the downtown area. A new ordinance would be required to reinsert the downtown exemption within the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The City Council would need to base this action on findings (justification and support for its decision to remove this provision from the Municipal Code and thereby lifting the downtown exemption); however, those findings do not specifically need to be made based on an analysis of market conditions as is required by Municipal Code Section 17-8(d).

3. Amend Section 17-8(d) to apply only to adaptive reuse residential developments in the downtown. The downtown exemption would no longer apply to new construction residential development. This amendment would be revisited as part of a more comprehensive review and update of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Guidelines along with the Housing Element update, scheduled to start mid-2023.

4. The City Council may otherwise direct staff how to proceed regarding the downtown exemption.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. 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 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Guidelines support the City Council’s Strategic Plan 2022-2025 Goals and Strategies including Economic Development, Housing/Affordable Housing, and Effective and Culturally Responsive Government.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Implementation of the Inclusionary Ordinance is coordinated and supported by multiple Divisions and Departments including, the Housing Division, Current Planning Division, Advanced Planning & Project Implementation Division of the Community Development Department; Permit Services; Economic Development; Public Works; the City Attorney’s Office; and City Administration.

Page | 6
FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

To provide the necessary data for City Council to consider elimination of the Downtown Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Exemption, a contract with EPS, Inc. was executed to update the Housing Target Market Analysis. EPS updated the HTMA and completed the initial findings memo on August 30, 2022, which is attached to this report. EPS will follow up with a more detailed analysis that looks at different development prototypes and their corresponding financial viability.

The contract for EPS to complete the HTMA is at a not to exceed amount of $24,990.

It is anticipated that consultant costs for a future update of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance including Legal Counsel will be approximately $100,000. Next fiscal year, the Department is likely to request funding for this purpose.

ATTACHMENTS:

September 13, 2022 Administrative Report and Attachments Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 2022
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: MEGAN HUNTER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: ROD POWELL, PLANNING MANAGER
TITLE: INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

This is an Administrative Report on the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Downtown Area exemption. No action is required.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council receive and accept the Administrative Report on the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Downtown Area exemption.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In 2017, following two years of multi-faceted community and stakeholder engagement, comprehensive data collection and analysis, and careful planning and consideration, the City Council adopted its current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to amend Article III of Article 17 (Housing) of the Salinas Municipal Code. In doing so, the Council satisfied its stated intent to provide greater flexibility and additional development options reflective of current market conditions while continuing to support a primary goal of encouraging affordable housing production.

In recognition of the number of inclusionary units and projects that encompass the Central City Overlay District (Downtown Area) and in support of the community perspective outlined in the Downtown Vibrancy as well as findings and recommendation made in a 2017 Housing Target Market Analysis (HTMA) Study, the Council acknowledged the untested residential development potential within the Downtown Area and exercised its authority to implement a market-based exemption to the Ordinance. Based on the 2022 updated HTMA (Attachment 1), City staff is recommending that the exemption remain in place and be re-evaluated as the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Update is initiated in the summer of 2023.

Page | 2
BACKGROUND:

The City currently has nearly 800 inclusionary housing units (rental and ownership) in its existing housing portfolio. City Council first adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 1992 (Ordinance No. 2178). During the 2002 update of the City’s General Plan, it was determined that the need for affordable housing was such that inclusionary policies should be reviewed to determine if it was feasible to increase the requirements of the ordinance. On May 1, 2003, the City engaged Bay Area Economics to update the study and to provide additional information regarding options for increasing the required percentage of affordable units within new residential development. In 2005, the City updated and adopted Ordinance No. 2451. Unfortunately, the new ordinance coupled with the Great Recession had a chilling effect on housing production and not a single inclusionary unit was built under the 2005 Ordinance.

As part of the City’s 2015-23 General Plan Housing Element update, the City Council authorized direction under “Action H-8: Inclusionary Housing” to update the existing Ordinance along with a nexus study. The City was anxious to update the Ordinance in anticipation of the entitlement processes for the West Area and Central Area Specific Plans, which were well underway. To ensure stakeholder engagement, the City Council approved the selection of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to serve as the recommendation committee regarding the ordinance update. The TAC was made up of various members from the development community and community stakeholders. The City also contracted with Baird and Driskell Community Planning to assist with drafting the ordinance update. The TAC began meeting in December of 2014 and after fifteen (15) working group meetings, the amended ordinance was introduced to City Council on May 16, 2017, and subsequently adopted on June 6, 2017.

DISCUSSION:

Inclusionary housing is a complex topic involving many factors which often seeks to balance the socio-economic needs of a jurisdiction with the profit-driven nature of developers. Local policies typically seek to tap the economic gains from rising real estate values and emerging markets to create affordable housing opportunities for lower income families using various development alternatives, incentives or requirements imposed on developers. The Inclusionary Ordinance is one of several tools used by the City to encourage and promote the production of housing that is affordable to low and moderate-income households.

The City’s current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance represents a convergence of parallel initiatives, policies, and data-driven decisions that simultaneously emerged and developed from 2015 to 2017. These include the General Plan Housing Element, Downtown Vibrancy Plan (DVP), 2014-2023 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and 2017 Housing Target Market Analysis for the Downtown, Chinatown, and Alisal neighborhoods. The explicit intent of the Ordinance is to provide a range of developer-friendly alternatives and options that will also support the need for housing production within Salinas. Conceptually, these initiatives seek to balance the need for responsible future growth in consideration of existing identified opportunities and socioeconomic conditions.

Page | 3
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 2017
The goal of the 2017 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was to present a variety of options that would not be a barrier to the development of inclusionary units on-site. Notable provisions of the ordinance include the establishment of an Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund, on-site inclusionary options for - for sale and rental residential units, in-lieu payment options, limited residential development exemptions, and flexibility that allows City Council to approve an option not on menu.

At the time of its development, the Ordinance had to be consistent with the court decision on the Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v City of Los Angeles case and the Costa-Hawkins Residential Rent Control Act, which did not allow the City to require on-site inclusionary rental units.

It should be noted that the West Area Specific Plan (WASP) and Central Area Specific Plan (CASP) have approved Development Agreements that lock in the provisions of the 2017 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. This means that when the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is updated, the new provisions of that ordinance would not apply to either the WASP or CASP.

On-site Inclusionary Options:

On-site For-Sale On-site
Rental Mixed For-Sale/Rental Option
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
20% 15% 12% 20%
Very Low 4% not
required 8% 4% Rental / Option to pay rental impact fees Low 8% not
required 4% 8% Rental / Option to pay rental impact fees Median not
required 6% not required not required
Moderate 4% 6% not required 4% Ownership
Workforce 4% 3% not required 4% Ownership
In Lieu Fees:

Developers may pay an in-lieu fee instead of providing the unit on site. The current in-lieu fee for a for-sale unit is $14.05 per square foot. For a rental unit, the current in-lieu fee is $2.40 per square foot. As stated above, developers of rental housing may voluntarily elect to mitigate the impact by providing affordable rental housing on site. If the developer chooses to pay the rental housing impact fee, the applicant will also make twelve percent (12%) of the units within the development available to Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program participants.

Residential Development Exemptions:
 Developments creating fewer than ten (10) additional dwelling units or lots  Developments under a development agreement executed prior to the effective date of the Ordinance (June 6, 2017)
Page | 4
 Developments exempted by Government Code section 66474.2 or 66498.1 and in compliance with any predecessor Ordinance in effect on the date the application for the development was complete
 Developments that have submitted a complete planning or building permit application along with full payment of required application fees prior to the effective date of the Ordinance (June 6, 2017), provided it complies with any approved affordable housing plan and any applicable predecessor Ordinance
 Developments in the Downtown Area (Central City Overlay District), unless determined by Council resolution that, based upon market conditions, the provisions of Article 17 would apply
Downtown (Central City Overlay District) Residential Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Exemption
In the Downtown (Central City Overlay District), there are 394 income restricted units (1996- 2022) including 6 – Extremely Low, 191 – Very Low, 190 – Low, and 7- Moderate units. This is one of the largest concentrations of affordable housing in the City (see Attachment 2). Chinatown, which is near the Downtown, is home to the most recently completed large affordable housing developments including Hikari, Dai-Ichi, and Moongate Plaza representing 177 units (see Attachment 2 & 3).

While Downtown has experienced significant affordable housing development over the years, market rate housing construction has lagged. In fact, only 24 market rate units have been developed over the last 5 years. In recognition of this challenge, the Downtown Vibrancy Plan (DVP) promoted the production of market-rate housing to bring more residents with disposable income to the Downtown to create vibrancy and income diversity. Because the DVP was developed at the same time the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was undergoing an update, the DVP specifically recommended an exemption to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for Downtown based on the following considerations:
 Most recent housing units built in the downtown are heavily subsidized with restricted rents
 Market-rate housing is desirable for retail businesses  Favorable existing policies that allow for higher densities, reduced open space, reduced parking, greater height requirements, and the allowed conversion of commercial space to residential use may not be enough
 Absence of a Downtown exemption greatly reduces the profitability of developments  There are few opportunity sites left in the Downtown
 Downtown housing opportunities promoting market rate housing should be a goal in evaluating and modifying all City policies
While there are encouraging signs of new market rate housing in development including 300 Main Street (Bruhn Building) with 19 units and 301 Main (Rabobank Building) with 49 units, affordable units still represent the preponderance of housing development in the area.

Page | 5
Because of the current Council’s interest in the potential removal of the Downtown Area exemption from the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, City staff initiated an update to the 2017 Housing Target Market Analysis (HTMA) to reflect current market conditions. The findings of the 2017 HTMA and 2022 HTMA Update are similar, and both concluded that the Downtown Area exemption remain in place.

The 2017 HTMA found that:
 There is substantial demand for near-term ownership and rental residential projects in Downtown.
 Consumer preference exists for market rate infill housing opportunities.  There is traction for Downtown adaptive reuse projects.  There are significant market risks to Downtown housing development including crime/public safety, homelessness, lack of open space, low school performance, traffic, and an untested market.
 The City should incorporate housing incentives that might contribute to development cost reductions to improve the market for downtown development including the exemption to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
2022 HTMA Update found that:
 Implementing inclusionary housing in the Downtown Area would constrain the current momentum of residential development in the Downtown as the early adopters establish proof of market in this nascent environment.
 The housing market in Salinas has become more expensive since the onset of the Covid19 pandemic.  Home ownership is becoming less affordable as housing prices continue to increase, rental units generally present a more affordable option for residents.  Current construction costs are extremely high.
 Market rate rental and ownership RD-60 (density of 60 units per acre) prototypes both have a negative residual value land value (the difference between a project’s high construction costs and its lower market value).
 Micro-rental units show the best project feasibility.

Timing of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Update
The Housing Element recommends that the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is re-evaluated every five years for a potential update. Since the ordinance was adopted in 2017, technically the City should begin the re-evaluation of the ordinance this year in 2022. Unfortunately, current capacity of Community Development Department Staff is severely limited by the City’s pandemic response including administration of Project Roomkey, Project Homekey, the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP), and HUD COVID-19 Funding. Staff has gone from administering approximately $3 million in grant funds annually to $30 million over just two years. In addition, staff must complete the update to the Housing Element by the end of 2023 or lose access to state grant funds. For these reasons the update to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will begin in summer 2023, allowing adequate time to close out COVID programming and to complete a draft Page | 6
of the Housing Element. As part of the update to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the Downtown Area exemption can be more thoroughly analyzed for possible modification.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The proposed action of accepting the informational report regarding the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15378.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance supports multiple City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025 Goals and Strategies including Economic Development, Housing/Affordable Housing, and Effective and Culturally Responsive Government.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Although this informational report was developed by the Community Development Department Housing Division, implementation of the Inclusionary Ordinance is coordinated and supported by multiple Divisions and Departments including, Current Planning, Advanced Planning & Project Implementation, Permit Services, Economic Development, Legal and Public Works.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The contract for EPS to complete the HTMA is at a not to exceed amount of $24,990.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. HTMA Downtown 2022 Update – Initial Findings, August 30, 2022

2. Table of Affordable Housing Units Produced in Downtown

3. Map of Downtown and Surrounding Area Map of Affordable Housing Developments

4. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Study Session Powerpoint

M EMORANDUM
To: City of Salinas
From: David Zehnder and Kate O’Beirne
Subject: HTMA Downtown 2022 Update—Initial Findings—
August 2022; EPS #222102
Date: August 30, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) was retained by the City of Salinas (City) to conduct a short-term update in advance of a more comprehensive update of the Housing
Target Market Analysis (HTMA) for Downtown Salinas.

The City is located in the Salinas Valley and is the most populated community in Monterey County (County). As such, it faces acute pressures for additional affordable housing in all its districts, including downtown. At the present time, inclusionary housing is exempted in this area to allow sufficient time for “early-adopters” to successfully respond to the combined market/regulatory environment.

A central objective of this update is to determine whether the time is right to impose inclusionary requirements of the City on Downtown projects, or to allow additional time for the abovereferenced market response to occur. A key conclusion to this evaluation, discussed below, is that the inclusionary housing exemption should be extended and reconsidered
at the time of the Housing Element update.

As is well-known, the City is under pressure by the State to demonstrate its ability to facilitate affordable housing.

However, it is important to have an eye toward private sector feasibility as various regulations are considered for housing prototypes in the downtown environment.

The HTMA examines existing socioeconomic trends and
residential real estate market conditions to gain an
understanding of local dynamics that will influence demand and test the feasibility of residential development in the Downtown Study Area to help determine potential approaches to an implementation of inclusionary requirements Downtown.

Memorandum: City of Salinas HTMA Downtown—Initial Findings August 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 2
Initial key findings derived from EPS’s market study along with a detailed technical analysis table set are presented in the sections below. At the time the City begins its evaluation of the housing element and corresponding inclusionary policy, EPS will update these initial findings and continue to solicit input or requests for additional information to finalize a draft report. The intention is to allow an opportunity to compare notes and expectations with the City before finalizing this initial update. An expanded report would provide ample time and opportunity to more fully assess evolving market conditions, regulatory opportunities and constraints, and private sector feasibility responses.

Recommendations
Since about 2020, the housing development in Downtown Salinas has started to gain momentum following the completion of the initial HTMA in 2017. Recent residential development projects, such as the Bruhn and Rabobank buildings, which are currently under construction and together will provide an addition of about 70 units to the Downtown, and there are additional units in the pipeline.

The below examination of the existing conditions and pro forma analysis predicated on the larger city market, as well as discussions with local developers, indicate that at this time implementing inclusionary housing Downtown would constrain the current momentum of residential development in the Downtown as the early adopters establish proof of market in this nascent environment.

The City’s population increases have contributed to an undersupply of housing units reflected by rising housing costs and a continuous decline in residential vacancy rates since 2010, with a low rate of 3.3 percent currently for all unit types. The undersupply of housing most prominently affects underserved populations, including students, teachers, young families, low-income families and individuals, seniors, people with disabilities, and the unhoused population indicating the need for focused strategies to increase a variety of housing types at different levels of affordability. Providing affordable housing, whether subsidized by the government or affordable by design (e.g., housing that is affordable based on physical design, tenancy, or financing elements), is a necessity now with more than half of renters and more than a quarter of homeowners defined as housing cost burdened.

The initial feasibility analysis shows some positive indicators without costs associated with inclusionary requirements, especially for the development of micro rental units and missing middle ownership product, though our preliminary recommendation is to continue to provide exemptions for parking, outdoor space, and inclusionary requirements for residential development within the Central City Overlay as well as Adaptive Reuse. Extending these exemptions will continue to provide incentive to build in the Downtown, as discussions with developers revealed that these exemptions are a large factor in getting the residential Memorandum: City of Salinas HTMA Downtown—Initial Findings August 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 3
projects "to pencil". While providing inclusionary housing is extremely important at this time, the addition of all net new units to the Downtown can help alleviate some of the demand. The City should hold off on implementing inclusionary requirements until the examination of the housing element and inclusionary ordinance, which will then provide an opportunity to analyze the market, product types, and how the current policies affect development more closely.

Existing Socioeconomic Conditions
 The City has experienced significant growth in its population and household populations, with a slight decline in persons per household over the last 12 years. With its central location and role as County Seat, the City is the most populous city in the County, home to about 160,000 residents as of 2022. Over the past decade, the City added almost 9,500 residents and more than 2,880 households, comprising more than half of the County’s population growth (as of 2022) and almost 40 percent of household growth.

Persons per household in both the City and the County declined by about 1 percent. See Table 1-1.
 Household incomes have increased over the past decade. Median household income in the City increased by about 7.5 percent between 2010 and 2020, rising from $63,180 to $67,900 (in 2020 dollars). The increase in incomes is also reflected while looking at where City households lie in the income range categories. The fastest growing income range category was for households earning $200,000 or more annually with an absolute increase of over 1,905 households and the percentage of households earning $100,000 or more annually increased from 17 percent up to 30 percent. See Table 1-2.  Resident worker growth in Salinas was more than double the growth in jobs within Salinas. The City has almost 62,600 resident workers with an increase of over 10,000 workers between 2010 and 2019 compared to the City’s 58,800 jobs, which only grew by 4,600 over the same period. The top industry for both resident workers and jobs remains Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting. The top growth industry for resident workers was Health Care and Social Assistance, with the addition of 2,900 resident workers, matched as the top growth industry for jobs with an increase of 2,430 jobs.

While nearly 60 percent of employed residents commute outside of the City for work about 57 percent of local jobs are filled by workers that do not live in the City. Amongst the 58,800 jobs in the City, about 43 percent (25,350) are residents who both live and work in the City, and the remaining are incommuters (33,380) traveling into the City for work from cities and CDPs such as Soledad, Prunedale, Seaside, Marina, San José, Greenfield, Monterey, and Hollister. See Tables 1-3, 1-4, and 1-5.

Memorandum: City of Salinas HTMA Downtown—Initial Findings August 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 4
 A little more than half of the households in Salinas are renteroccupied dwelling units but detached single dwelling units are the most occupied unit type. Approximately 52 percent of households in the City are renter-occupied following a similar pattern to the County’s 48 percent. Approximately 57 percent of all households live in detached single dwelling units and about 28 percent of those are renter-occupied. Single detached dwelling units comprise 30 percent of renter-occupied households, making single dwelling units the second most occupied unit type for renters following multifamily buildings with 5 or more units (44 percent). See Table 2-1.
 Almost half of the households in Salinas have 4 or more occupants, and overcrowding has increased by almost 20 percent over the last decade. In both renter- and owner-occupied households the highest proportion of households are those with 5 or more occupants, more than 50 percent of renter-households, and 42 percent of owner-occupied households have 4 or more occupants. An overcrowded household is defined by the U.S. Census as having 1 or more persons per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). The number of households considered overcrowded has increased in both renter- and owner-occupied households, by 28 percent and 11 percent, respectively for a combined increase of 20 percent. See Table 2-2 and Table 2-3.
 Most renter-occupied households in the County are considered rentburdened. Of the renter-occupied households, about 55 percent are considered rent-burdened, which means that a household pays more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs. Of these rent-burdened households, about 26 percent are considered severely cost-burdened, which means they pay more than 50 percent of their income on rent. Approximately 33 percent of owner-occupied households are considered cost burdened. See Table 2-4 and Table 2-5.

Housing Market Trends
 The City’s housing inventory is comprised mainly of single-family detached units. The City’s housing inventory is estimated to include 55 percent single detached dwelling units and 26 percent multifamily projects with 5 or more units. The supply allocation by type has remained relatively static over the last decade. See Table 3-1.
 Salinas’ increase in housing supply has not kept pace with household growth leading to a decline in available units. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates 1,136 net new housing units between 2010 and 2021, increasing the total supply by about 3 percent. With significant household growth over the same period of about 2,890 households, vacancy rates have decreased from around 5 to 6 percent to about 3 percent, Memorandum: City of Salinas HTMA Downtown—Initial Findings August 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 5
indicating a tight market with very little product available to existing or future residents looking to move, especially compared to the County’s vacancy rate of about 9 percent. See Tables 3-2 and 3-3.
 The housing market in Salinas has become much more expensive since the onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic. While Salinas falls in the middle of affordability within the County’s housing supply, home prices have increased 196 percent since 2012 (2022 average median sales price is $684,000) and rents by 57 percent since 2010 (2022 average asking rent is $1,760) as more people are seeking affordable housing markets and taking advantage of moving to more remote locations by being able to work from home. The housing market is tight with overall low vacancy and an average monthly inventory of for-sale units decreasing from over 1,200 available units to 370 units since 2012. See Tables 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6.
 Homeownership in the City is becoming less affordable as housing prices continue to increase, rental units generally present a more affordable option for residents. About 13 percent of City households have the financial capability (annual household incomes of $150,000 or more) to purchase a median-or-higher priced home in the City based on current housing prices ($683,800), whereas approximately 50 percent of households can afford (annual household incomes of $70,400) to rent an average-orhigher priced unit of $1,760. See Table 3-7 and Table 1-2.

For decades, California has faced a housing crisis related to its significant unhoused population and rising housing costs. For those living in poverty, high rental rates have translated into large proportions of their income allocated to housing costs, leaving little remaining for basic living expenses, let alone bolstering savings accounts to build wealth.1 Rising home sales prices have translated into larger down payment requirements, leading to homeownership challenges for households with median and higher incomes.2 These challenges point to a root problem of limited housing supply. Indeed, several recent reports have estimated an undersupply of housing in the State that ranges from about 3 million to 4 million units. This undersupply represents the amount of housing that was needed over the last several decades to maintain housing costs in 1 Kimberlin, Sara and Esi Hutchful, 2019. New Census Figures Show More Than 1 in 6 Californians Struggle to Afford Basic Necessities. California Budget and Policy Center. [online] Available at https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/number-of-californians-living-in-poverty-hasbeen-declining-but-more-than-1-in-6-residents-still-struggle-to-afford-basicnecessities/#:~:text=Approximately%207.1%20million%20Californians%20lived,Supplemental% 20Poverty%20Measure%20(SPM) [Accessed January 2021].
2 Levin, Matt, 2021. Commentary: Five things I’ve learned covering California’s housing crisis that you should know. Cal Matters. [online] Available at https://calmatters.org/housing/2021/01/california-housing-crisis-lessons/ [Accessed January 2021].

Memorandum: City of Salinas HTMA Downtown—Initial Findings August 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 6
alignment with the rest of the country.3 4 With an overall housing shortage within the entire state and the above-referenced socioeconomic and residential market conditions within the City it is a critical time to address the potential inclusion of affordable housing for future development within Downtown Salinas. Below is a preliminary analysis to help start this conversation, which tests the feasibility of residential development in Downtown Salinas and the inclusion of affordable units.

Residential Feasibility Pro Forma
Analysis
Based on the socioeconomic and residential market assessments presented in the previous section, EPS performed a financial feasibility analysis to test the viability of different development prototypes. To gain an understanding of the relative financial viability of the various land use concepts evaluated, EPS used a measure of financial feasibility commonly referred to as a “residual land value analysis,” (RLV) which models the revenues achieved by operating or selling a particular building to arrive at an estimated building value, or “finished real estate value.” For residential ownership products, the finished real estate value is based on the estimated sales price of the unit. For rental residential products, finished real estate values are estimated using valuation techniques that consider annual net operating income. A prototype that would be considered feasible will have a RLV equal to about 20 to 30 percent of total asset value (finished lot plus structure).

This analysis assumes that the developer obtained the land at no cost.

Capitalization rates, revenue, and cost assumptions are based on current market conditions, but are subject to change with fluctuations in the market, such as the rising interest rates, which have been taken into consideration.

It is important to note that the feasibility findings presented in this section are preliminary and additional analysis will be needed to evaluate the financial viability of specific land use programs.

For purposes of the financial feasibility analysis and based on the residential real estate market dynamics, EPS evaluated the financial feasibility of the following land use prototypes.
3 Taylor, Mac, 2015. California’s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences. Legislative Analyst Office. [online] Available at https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housingcosts/housing-costs.pdf [Accessed January 2021]. 4 Dillon, Liam, 2018. California lawmakers killed one of the biggest housing bills in the country.

Los Angeles Times. [online] Available at https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-big-housingbill-dies-20180417-story.html [Accessed January 2021].

Memorandum: City of Salinas HTMA Downtown—Initial Findings August 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7
Renter-Occupied Units
 Very High-Density Micro Apartment Units: a very high-density rental product at a density of approximately 180 dwelling units per acre with units averaging 270 square feet.
 High-Density Apartment Units: a traditional high density apartment complex project with a density of 60 units per acre.

Owner-Occupied Units
 High-Density Attached Units (Condominium): a traditional high density condominium project with a density of 60 units per acre.  Medium-Density Attached Units (Townhomes/Rowhouse): a medium density attached townhomes/row house project with a density of 30 units per acre.

Appendix A presents the assumptions of the financial model that evaluates the feasibility of each development prototype.

The financial feasibility outcomes from Tables 4-1, Table 4-2, and Table 4-3 are summarized below:
 Current construction costs are extremely high and are projected to continue to increase through 2022 for a total estimated 14.1 percent increase over 2021. Cost escalations are predicted to continue to increase in 2023 and 2024 but dropping down to lower rates around 2 to 4 percent.5 6  The exorbitant construction costs are hindering the feasibility of both the market rate rental and ownership RD-60 prototypes, both have a negative residual land value.
 Based on the RLV, micro-rental units show the best prospect of feasibility, though this is a somewhat new product type that has been untested in the Salinas market.
 Under certain circumstances, RD-30 ownership product may be viable.

This may require a low master developer land basis or other factors that 5 Fahey, Ashley, The National Observer: Real Estate Edition, “Report: Construction costs may escalate 14.1% this year, but relief expected soon,” August 25, 2022 [accessed online August 2022] https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2022/08/25/construction-costs-increasethis-year.html. 6 EPS relied on a variety of sources to estimate approximate construction costs, including the Saylor 2020 Construction Cost Manuel, updated for inflation and adapted to the Monterey region, interviews of builders in the Monterey and Bay Area regions, and discussions with the City. See Appendix A Table A-2.

Memorandum: City of Salinas HTMA Downtown—Initial Findings August 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 8
reduce costs and improve revenue performance and could require a City write-down if sought in the near-term.
 Actual rents and home sales prices may outperform that evaluated here, which would improve feasibility outcomes substantially. This analysis calibrates rents and home sales prices to current income demographics, highlighting the challenges associated with delivering housing targeted at the “missing-middle” income segment.
 After folding in the existing inclusionary requirement options that are currently imposed on residential development outside of the City Center Overlay District per Municipal Code Ordinance Chapter 17 Article III. Section 17-8, the already negative residual land values are reduced further and the RD30 ownership product RLV becomes negative. The only exception is the micro unit prototype using the inclusionary fee option of providing 12 percent units as Section 8 and paying the housing impact fee.

Again, it is important to note that the general measures of financial feasibility offered in this report are intended to serve as an initial diagnostic comparing the relative viability of various residential prototypes to inform housing policy. This analysis is highly sensitive to assumptions made regarding achievable real estate values and development costs. It is possible that more fully developed concepts targeting specific niche markets could outperform the generic speculative concepts modeled here. Conversely, if development costs are substantially higher than estimated here, or sales prices and lease rates are substantially lower, the actual feasibility outlook could worsen.

Technical Analysis Organization
The technical analysis is presented in the following sections:

1. Table 1-1 through Table 1-6 present an analysis of existing conditions in the City and the County, including population, households, income, employment and jobs, jobs-housing balance, and commuting patterns.

2. Table 2-1 through Table 2-5 examine existing housing tenure by various demographic and socioeconomic variables, as well as an assessment of rentand cost-burdened households.

3. Table 3-1 through Table 3-7 present a real estate market overview to provide context to current residential market conditions in the City.

4. Table 4-1 through Table 4-3 provide the static pro forma examining the feasibility of both renter- and owner-occupied prototypes in the City and the addition of inclusionary requirements.

List of Tables
Existing Conditions
Table 1-1 Population and Household Trends .................................................. 9 Table 1-2 Household Income by Range ...................................................... 10 Table 1-3 City of Salinas Job Trends .......................................................... 11 Table 1-4 City of Salinas Resident Worker Trends ........................................ 12 Table 1-5 Commuting Patterns .................................................................. 13 Table 1-6 Nonresident Worker Profile ......................................................... 14 Existing Housing Tenure
Table 2-1 Tenure by Units In Structure ...................................................... 15 Table 2-2 Household Size and Tenure ........................................................ 16 Table 2-3 Occupants per Room by Tenure .................................................. 17 Table 2-4 Overall Rent Burden .................................................................. 18 Table 2-5 Owner’s Costs as a Percentage of Household Income by Household Income .................................................................... 19 Real Estate Market Overview
Table 3-1 Units in Structure ...................................................................... 20 Table 3-2 Units Permitted by Year ............................................................. 21 Table 3-3 Total Vacancy Rate ................................................................... 22 Table 3-4 Home Value Changes by County .................................................. 23 Table 3-5 For-Sale Housing Market Summary .............................................. 24 Table 3-6 Multifamily Housing Market Summary .......................................... 25 Table 3-7 Estimated Housing Unit Value Based on Income and Housing Costs in Monterey County .......................................................... 26 Static Pro Forma Feasibility
Table 4-1 Inclusionary Residential Development Static Pro Forma Summary .... 27 Table 4-2 Feasibility Analysis Pro Forma: Renter-Occupied Units (2 pages) ...... 28 Table 4-3 Feasibility Analysis Pro Forma: Owner-Occupied Units (2 pages) ...... 30 DRAFT
Table 1-1City of SalinasDowntown HTMAPopulation and Household Trends (2010-2022)Item Total
Population
Household
Population
Year-Over-Year
Population
Change Households
Year-OverYear
Household
Change
Persons
per
Household
[1]
Total
Population
Household
Population
Year-OverYear
Population
Change Households
Year-OverYear
Household
Change
Persons per
Household
[1]
Year
2010 150,441 147,976 - 40,387 - 3.66 415,057 393,814 - 124,899 - 3.15 2011 150,899 148,603 0.3% 40,417 0.1% 3.68 416,644 394,891 0.4% 124,984 0.1% 3.162012 153,286 151,057 1.6% 40,525 0.3% 3.73 422,621 400,631 1.4% 125,067 0.1% 3.202013 155,406 152,909 1.4% 40,495 (0.1%) 3.78 425,968 404,919 0.8% 124,695 (0.3%) 3.252014 156,532 154,055 0.7% 40,594 0.2% 3.80 427,733 407,663 0.4% 124,885 0.2% 3.262015 157,206 154,880 0.4% 40,641 0.1% 3.81 430,277 410,375 0.6% 125,204 0.3% 3.282016 158,973 156,750 1.1% 40,684 0.1% 3.85 435,185 414,591 1.1% 125,135 (0.1%) 3.312017 159,708 157,475 0.5% 40,665 (0.0%) 3.87 438,358 417,555 0.7% 125,358 0.2% 3.332018 159,846 157,605 0.1% 40,737 0.2% 3.87 438,639 418,163 0.1% 125,640 0.2% 3.332019 160,522 158,280 0.4% 40,777 0.1% 3.88 440,199 419,729 0.4% 126,116 0.4% 3.332020 161,577 159,198 0.7% 43,163 5.9% 3.69 440,393 420,316 0.0% 126,604 0.4% 3.322021 161,777 159,482 0.1% 43,084 (0.2%) 3.70 435,721 417,293 (1.1%) 131,316 3.7% 3.18 2022 159,932 157,569 (1.1%) 43,270 0.4% 3.64 433,716 413,361 (0.5%) 132,496 0.9% 3.12 Growth Estimates 2010-2022
Number 9,491 9,593 -- 2,883 -- (0.0) 18,659 19,547 -- 7,597 -- (0.0) % Change 6.3% 6.5% -- 7.1% -- (0.6%) 4.5% 5.0% -- 6.1% -- (1.1%) Avg. Annual Change 0.5% 0.5% -- 0.6% -- (0.1%) 0.4% 0.4% -- 0.5% -- (0.1%) Source: California Department of Finance Table E-5; EPS. [1] Includes household population only.

City of Salinas Monterey County
Prepared by EPS 8/26/2022
9 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 1-2City of SalinasDowntown HTMAHousehold Income by Range (2020 Estimate)Item 2010 [1] % 2020 % % Change 2010 [1] % 2020 % % ChangeIncome Range <$15,000 4,019 9.8% 2,643 6.4% (34.2%) 10,872 8.7% 8,265 6.5% (24.0%) $15,000 - $24,999 5,208 12.7% 3,262 7.9% (37.4%) 12,121 9.7% 9,409 7.4% (22.4%)$25,000 - $34,999 4,798 11.7% 3,015 7.3% (37.2%) 11,996 9.6% 10,045 7.9% (16.3%)$35,000 - $49,999 6,151 15.0% 5,286 12.8% (14.1%) 17,245 13.8% 15,131 11.9% (12.3%)$50,000 - $74,999 8,284 20.2% 8,383 20.3% 1.2% 24,118 19.3% 24,159 19.0% 0.2%$75,000 - $99,999 5,413 13.2% 6,483 15.7% 19.8% 16,870 13.5% 18,056 14.2% 7.0%$100,000 - $149,999 4,921 12.0% 6,814 16.5% 38.5% 18,495 14.8% 20,981 16.5% 13.4%$150,000 - $199,999 1,435 3.5% 2,726 6.6% 89.9% 6,498 5.2% 9,791 7.7% 50.7%$200,000+ 779 1.9% 2,684 6.5% 244.5% 6,623 5.3% 11,317 8.9% 70.9%Total 41,009 100.0% 41,296 100.0% 0.7% 124,963 - 127,155 100.0% 1.8% Median Household Income in 2020$ $63,178 $67,914 7.5% $73,701 $71,015 -3.6%Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2020, Table S1901; EPS.[1] The median household income for 2010 has been escalated to 2020 dollars using the CPI rate of 24.3% between 2010 and 2020.

City of Salinas Monterey County
Prepared by EPS 8/26/2022
10 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 1-3City of SalinasDowntown HTMACity of Salinas Job Trends (2010 and 2019)Item No. % No. % ChangeIndustry Sector Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 13,113 24.2% 12,122 20.6% (991) (0.9%)Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 6 0.0% 0 0.0% (6) (100.0%)Utilities 171 0.3% 109 0.2% (62) (4.9%) Construction 1,036 1.9% 1,542 2.6% 506 4.5%Manufacturing 2,567 4.7% 1,921 3.3% (646) (3.2%)Wholesale Trade 1,726 3.2% 2,741 4.7% 1,015 5.3%Retail Trade 5,245 9.7% 6,474 11.0% 1,229 2.4%Transportation and Warehousing 924 1.7% 1,102 1.9% 178 2.0%Information 615 1.1% 657 1.1% 42 0.7% Finance and Insurance 1,119 2.1% 884 1.5% (235) (2.6%)Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 359 0.7% 366 0.6% 7 0.2% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1,268 2.3% 1,339 2.3% 71 0.6%Management of Companies and Enterprises 628 1.2% 558 1.0% (70) (1.3%) Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 2,053 3.8% 2,574 4.4% 521 2.5%Educational Services 5,293 9.8% 6,240 10.6% 947 1.8%Health Care and Social Assistance 6,435 11.9% 8,862 15.1% 2,427 3.6%Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 409 0.8% 463 0.8% 54 1.4% Accommodation and Food Services 3,147 5.8% 4,254 7.2% 1,107 3.4%Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 2,784 5.1% 1,589 2.7% (1,195) (6.0%)Public Administration 5,204 9.6% 4,936 8.4% (268) (0.6%)Total 54,102 100.0% 58,733 100.0% 4,631 0.9% worker trends
Source: US Census LEHD OnTheMap, 2019; EPS.

Industry Trends
City of Salinas
2010-2019
Average
Annual
Growth
2010 2019
Prepared by EPS 8/26/2022
11 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 1-4City of SalinasDowntown HTMACity of Salinas Resident Worker Trends (2010 and 2019)Item No. % No. % ChangeIndustry Sector Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 9,956 19.0% 10,200 16.3% 244 0.3%Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 70 0.1% 57 0.1% (13) (2.3%) Utilities 214 0.4% 222 0.4% 8 0.4%
Construction 1,765 3.4% 3,304 5.3% 1,539 7.2%Manufacturing 2,924 5.6% 3,348 5.3% 424 1.5% Wholesale Trade 1,950 3.7% 2,535 4.1% 585 3.0%Retail Trade 5,629 10.7% 6,457 10.3% 828 1.5%Transportation and Warehousing 1,260 2.4% 1,718 2.7% 458 3.5%Information 627 1.2% 692 1.1% 65 1.1% Finance and Insurance 995 1.9% 927 1.5% (68) (0.8%)
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 555 1.1% 651 1.0% 96 1.8% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1,706 3.2% 2,013 3.2% 307 1.9% Management of Companies and Enterprises 611 1.2% 775 1.2% 164 2.7% Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 2,460 4.7% 3,485 5.6% 1,025 3.9%Educational Services 4,462 8.5% 5,354 8.6% 892 2.0%Health Care and Social Assistance 5,443 10.4% 8,347 13.3% 2,904 4.9%Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 657 1.3% 829 1.3% 172 2.6%Accommodation and Food Services 4,507 8.6% 6,096 9.7% 1,589 3.4%Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 2,808 5.3% 1,837 2.9% (971) (4.6%)Public Administration 3,937 7.5% 3,735 6.0% (202) (0.6%)Total 52,536 100.0% 62,582 100.0% 10,046 2.0% worker trends
Source: US Census LEHD OnTheMap, 2019; EPS.

Resident Worker Trends
City of Salinas
2010-2019
Average
Annual
Growth
2010 2019
Prepared by EPS 8/26/2022
12 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 1-5City of SalinasDowntown HTMACommuting Patterns: City of Salinas (2019)Item Count % of Total Count % of TotalResident Workers Residents both Living and Employed in the Study Area 22,143 42.1% 25,354 40.5%Residents Living in the Study Area but Employed Outside (Outflow) 30,393 57.9% 37,228 59.5%Subtotal Resident Workers 52,536 100.0% 62,582 100.0% Employment
Residents both Living and Employed in the Study Area 22,143 40.9% 25,354 43.2%Workers Employed in the Study Area but Living Outside 31,959 59.1% 33,379 56.8%Total Employment in Area (Inflow) 54,102 100.0% 58,733 100.0% Inflow/Outflow Ratio [1] 178.0% 157.8%
Source: U.S. Census OnTheMap 2019; U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates Table S0801 2019; EPS. 2019
[1] The inflow/outflow ratio is the percentage of residents living in the specified area that travel outside of that area for work compared to the total employment for that specified area. 2010
City of Salinas
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
13 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 1-6
City of Salinas
Downtown HTMA
Nonresident Worker Profile (2010 and 2019)
Item Nonres. Workers % of Total Nonres. Workers % of Total Salinas Jobs Filled
by Nonresident Workers 54,102 100% 58,733 100%
Worker Ages
29 Years or Younger 12,959 24% 12,973 22%
30 Years to 54 Years 30,507 56% 31,402 53%
55 Years or Older 10,636 20% 14,358 24%
Total 54,102 100% 58,733 100%
Monthly Worker Earnings
$1,250 or Less 13,846 26% 12,295 21%
$1,251 to $3,333 20,791 38% 18,464 31%
$3,334 or More 19,465 36% 27,974 48%
Total 54,102 100% 58,733 100%
Worker Industry Class
"Goods Producing" [1] 16,722 31% 15,585 27%
"Trade, Transportation, and Utilities" [2] 8,066 15% 10,426 18% "All Other Services" [3] 29,314 54% 32,722 56%
Total 54,102 100% 58,733 100%
Source: US Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Statistics for 2019; EPS. [3] Includes all other NAICS industry classes not listed above. [1] Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) identifies Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting (NAICS 11); Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction (NAICS 21); Construction (NAICS 23); and Manufacturing (NAICS 31-33) as industries in this industry class.
[2] BLS identifies Wholesale Trade (NAICS 42); Retail Trade (NAICS 44-45); Transportation and Warehousing (NAICS 48-49); and Utilities (NAICS 22) as industries in this industry class. 2010 2019
Prepared by EPS 8/26/2022
14 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 2-1
City of Salinas
Downtown HTMA
Tenure by Units In Structure (2020)
Item
OwnerOccupiedRenter
Occupied
Share
Renter
Occupied
OwnerOccupiedRenter
Occupied
Share
Renter
Occupied
Unit Type
Detached Single-Family 17,213 6,513 27.5% 58,100 22,528 27.9% Attached Single-Family 857 1,813 67.9% 2,819 5,227 65.0% Duplex 918 31 96.7% 272 3,525 92.8%
3 to 4 unit building 2,256 323 87.5% 697 7,364 91.4%
5 + unit building 9,526 132 98.6% 811 20,975 96.3%
Other 1,210 29.4% 3,647 504 2,038 35.8%
Total 19,766 21,530 52.1% 66,346 61,657 48.2%
Source: American Community Survey 2016-2020 5-Year Estimates, Table B25032; EPS.

City of Salinas Monterey County
Prepared by EPS 8/26/2022
15 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 2-2
City of Salinas
Downtown HTMA
Household Size and Tenure (2010 and 2020)
Item Total % Total %
Renter-Occupied Households
1-person 4,267 19.8% 3,544 16.5% (16.94%)
2-person 3,699 17.2% 3,757 17.5% 1.57%
3-person 3,504 16.2% 3,341 15.5% (4.65%)
4-person 4,269 19.8% 4,569 21.2% 7.03%
5+ -person 5,828 27.0% 6,319 29.3% 8.42%
Total 21,567 100.0% 21,530 100.0% (0.17%)
Owner-Occupied
1-person 3,224 16.6% 3,060 15.5% (5.09%)
2-person 5,122 26.3% 5,008 25.3% (2.23%)
3-person 3,301 17.0% 3,346 16.9% 1.36%
4-person 3,517 18.1% 3,310 16.7% (5.89%)
5+ -person 4,278 22.0% 5,042 25.5% 17.86%
Total 19,442 100.0% 19,766 100.0% 1.67%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B25009; EPS. 2010 2020 Change
(2010-2020)
City of Salinas
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
16 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 2-3
City of Salinas
Downtown HTMA
Occupants per Room by Tenure: City of Salinas (2010 and 2020) Item Total % Total %
OCCUPANTS PER ROOM [1]
Renter-occupied
Less than 0.5 6,856 31.8% 6,038 28.0% (11.9%)

0.51 - 1.00 9,804 45.5% 9,559 44.4% (2.5%)

1.01 - 1.50 3,168 14.7% 4,249 19.7% 34.1%

1.51 - 2.00 1,392 6.5% 1,267 5.9% (9.0%)

2.01 or more 1.6% 417 1.9% 347 20.2%
Total 21,567 100% 21,530 100% (0.2%)
Subtotal Overcrowded 4,907 22.8% 5,933 27.6% 20.9%
Owner-occupied
Less than 0.5 10,529 54.2% 10,297 52.1% (2.2%)

0.51 - 1.00 36.8% 7,287 7,152 36.9% 1.9%

1.01 - 1.50 1,273 6.5% 1,664 8.4% 30.7%

1.51 - 2.00 2.3% 260 1.3% (43.0%) 456

2.01 or more 0.2% 258 32 1.3% -
Total 19,442 100% 19,766 100% 1.7%
Subtotal Overcrowded 1,761 9.1% 2,182 11.0% 23.9%
Total
Less than 0.5 17,385 80.6% 16,335 39.6% (6.0%)

0.51 - 1.00 16,956 78.6% 16,846 40.8% (0.6%)

1.01 - 1.50 20.6% 5,913 14.3% 4,441 33.1%

1.51 - 2.00 1,848 8.6% 1,527 3.7% (17.4%)

2.01 or more 1.8% 675 1.6% 379 78.1%
Total 41,009 190% 41,296 100.0% 0.7%
Subtotal Overcrowded 6,668 16.3% 8,115 19.7% 21.7%
Source: American Community Survey Table 5-Year estimates Table B25014; EPS. 2010 2020 Change
(2010-2020)
[1] The US Census Bureau defines an overcrowded housing unit as having 1 or more persons per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

City of Salinas
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
17 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 2-4
City of Salinas
Downtown HTMA
Overall Rent Burden (2020)
Item
Total Renter
Households
% of Total Renter
Households
Rent as a Percentage of
Household Income [1]
Less than 30% of Income 9,355 44.7%
30% to 50% of Income 6,098 29.2%
More than 50% of Income 5,465 26.1%
Total Renter Households 20,918 100.0%
City of Salinas
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25070; EPS.
[1] The US Department of Housing and Urban Development defines a household spending more than 30% of their income on housing as "rent burdened." Households spending more than 50% of their income on housing are considered "severely rent burdened." Approximately 612 households were not computed.

Prepared by EPS 8/26/2022
18 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 2-5
City of Salinas
Downtown HTMA
Owner's Costs as a Percentage of Household Income by Household Income (2020) Item
Owner-Occupied
Households
Share within
Income Bracket
Share with
Mortage
Housing Cost Burden by Income Bracket [1]
Less than $20,000
Less than 30% 183 16.7% 3.8%
30% or more 911 83.3% 56.1%
Total 100.0% 47.3% 1,094
$20,000 to $49,999
Less than 30% 1,118 36.9% 10.3%
30% or more 63.1% 83.9% 1,909
Total 100.0% 56.7% 3,027
$50,000 to $74,999
Less than 30% 1,849 53.7% 43.6%
30% or more 46.3% 100.0% 1,597
Total 100.0% 69.8% 3,446
$75,000 or More
Less than 30% 8,971 84.7% 74.7%
30% or more 1,621 15.3% 100.0%
Total 100.0% 78.6% 10,592
Totals
Less than 30% 12,121 66.7% 63.0%
30% or more 6,038 33.3% 88.3%
Totals 100.0% 71.8% 18,159
Source: American Community Survey Year Estimates, Table B25101; EPS.

City of Salinas
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
19 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 3-1City of SalinasDowntown HTMAUnits in Structure (2010 and 2022)Item Units % of Total Units % of
Total Total % Units
% of
Total Units
% of
Total Total %
Units in Structure [1]
Single Detached Units 23,540 55.2% 24,377 54.9% 837 3.6% 87,355 63.3% 90,834 63.2% 3,479 4.0%Single Attached Units 2,731 6.4% 2,799 6.3% 68 2.5% 8,902 6.5% 9,039 6.3% 137 1.5%2-4 Units 4,165 9.8% 4,307 9.7% 142 3.4% 12,388 9.0% 12,830 8.9% 442 3.6%5+ Units 10,864 25.5% 11,541 26.0% 677 6.2% 23,593 17.1% 25,122 17.5% 1,529 6.5%Mobile Homes 1,351 3.2% 1,381 3.1% 30 2.2% 5,672 4.1% 5,806 4.0% 134 2.4%Total Housing Units 42,651 100.0% 44,405 100.0% 1,754 4.1% 137,910 100.0% 143,631 100.0% 5,721 4.1%Average annual Units 146 3 Source: California Department of Finance Table E-5; EPS.[1] Per DOF, the 2010 and 2022 figures differ significantly because they are derived from different benchmarks. The 2010-2020 file is based on the 2010 Census benchmark and has not been resolved for errors. The 2020-2022 file is based on the 2020 Census benchmark. DOF cannot close the 2010-2020 decade series and resolve any errors until the Census Bureau releases their Detailed Demographic and Housing Characteristics file, estimated in mid-2023.

City of Salinas Monterey County
2010 2022 Change 2010 2022 Change
Prepared by EPS 8/26/2022
20 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 3-2City of SalinasDowntown HTMAUnits Permitted by Year (2000-2021)Item 1-Unit 2-Unit 3- and 4-
Unit 5-Unit + Total
Year
2000 579 4 18 50 651 2001 268 - - 160 428 2002 442 14 9 92 557 2003 257 - 14 273 544 2004 231 - 6 25 262 2005 224 - - 21 245 2006 119 - - - 119 2007 72 2 - 170 244 2008 24 2 8 58 92 2009 19 - - 18 37 2010 35 - 16 88 139 2011 7 - 8 10 25 2012 11 2 - - 13 2013 3 2 3 51 59 2014 30 - - 36 66 2015 46 2 - 46 94
2016 2 2 - 48 52 2017 26 - - - 26 2018 57 - - 106 163
2019 80 4 - 12 96 2020 96 - - 109 205
2021 64 4 - 130 198 Total 2000-2021 2,692 82 1,503 38 4,315Average per Year (2000-2021) 128 4 72 205 2Total 2010-2021 457 16 27 636 1,136Average per Year (2010-2021) 42 1 2 58 103 City of Salinas
Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development State of the Cities Database; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 8/26/2022
21 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 3-3City of SalinasDowntown HTMATotal Vacancy Rate (2010-2022)Item City of Salinas Monterey CountyYear 2010 5.3% 9.4%2011 5.3% 9.6%2012 5.3% 9.6%2013 5.5% 9.9%2014 5.5% 10.0% 2015 5.5% 10.0%
2016 5.6% 10.3%
2017 5.6% 10.3%
2018 5.6% 10.5%
2019 5.7% 10.6%
2020 2.8% 10.7%
2021 3.3% 8.8%2022 3.3% 8.7%
Source: California Department of Finance E-5; EPS.

Total Residential Vacancy Rate
Prepared by EPS 8/26/2022
22 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 3-4City of SalinasDowntown HTMAHome Value Changes by County (2012-2022)Item City July 2012 July 2022 Percentage Change
(July 2012-July 2022)
Rank [2]
1 Soledad $179,274 $606,385 238%2 King City $159,997 $506,613 217%3 Salinas $256,349 $733,725 186%4 Castroville $259,358 $709,994 174% 5 Monterey $534,783 $1,217,425 128%
6 Marina $334,200 $873,884 161%7 Seaside $307,352 $798,493 160%8 Del Rey Oaks $362,954 $921,085 154%9 Pacific Grove $619,794 $1,491,032 141% 10 Carmel-by-the-Sea $1,142,538 $2,692,137 136%
Average $415,660 $1,055,077 154%
Source: Zillow, EPS.
[2] Rank based on percentage change in home value from 2012 to 2022.

Zillow Home Value Index [1]
[1] The Zillow Home Value Index represents the typical value of a home or condominium, defined as a home with a value between the 33rd percentile and the 67th percentile.

Prepared by EPS 8/26/2022
23 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 3-5City of SalinasDowntown HTMAFor-Sale Housing Market Summary (2012-2022)ItemYear 2012 [1] 1,214 - $231,336 - 183 232013 1,120 (7.7%) $290,813 25.7% 119 152014 917 (18.1%) $350,669 20.6% 190 262015 958 4.5% $381,208 8.7% 203 37 2016 989 3.2% $415,417 9.0% 242 57
2017 870 (12.0%) $448,229 7.9% 208 552018 899 3.3% $464,792 3.7% 193 51 2019 885 (1.6%) $506,250 8.9% 186 532020 796 (10.1%) $554,458 9.5% 138 462021 956 20.1% $642,363 15.9% 113 35 2022 [2] 368 (61.5%) $683,833 6.5% 90 32
Average/Total Change [3] 960 (21.3%) $451,761 195.6% 93 39 Source: RedFin; EPS.[1] Data for 2012 starts in Feburary.[2] Year-to-date for 2022 is through June 2022.[3] Average and percentage change for the number of homes sold excludes 2022 as it is not a full year of data.

City of Salinas
% Change
from Previous
Year
Average of the
Monthly Median
Sale Price
% Change from
Previous Year
Average
Days on
Market
Average
Monthly
Inventory
Homes
Sold
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
24 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 3-6City of SalinasDowntown HTMAMultifamily Housing Market Summary (2010-2022)ItemYear 2010 172 2,743 - 0 $1,119 - 3.6% 475 9,830 - - $1,047 - 4.0% 2011 173 2,766 0.8% 23 $1,124 0.4% 4.2% 475 9,830 0.0% - $1,056 0.9% 4.4% 2012 173 2,766 0.0% 0 $1,149 2.2% 3.8% 475 9,830 0.0% - $1,078 2.1% 4.1%2013 173 2,766 0.0% 0 $1,180 2.7% 3.5% 475 9,830 0.0% - $1,107 2.7% 3.6%2014 175 2,785 0.7% 19 $1,208 2.4% 3.2% 475 9,830 0.0% - $1,151 4.0% 3.1%2015 175 2,785 0.0% 0 $1,293 7.0% 2.2% 475 9,830 0.0% - $1,275 10.8% 2.7%2016 176 2,826 1.5% 41 $1,355 4.8% 2.8% 475 9,830 0.0% - $1,369 7.4% 2.8%2017 175 2,796 (1.1%) (30) $1,419 4.7% 2.1% 476 9,878 0.5% 48 $1,471 7.5% 2.6% 2018 176 2,846 1.8% 50 $1,494 5.3% 2.2% 476 9,878 0.0% - $1,546 5.1% 2.2% 2019 176 2,846 0.0% 0 $1,517 1.5% 2.1% 476 9,878 0.0% - $1,586 2.6% 2.7%2020 176 2,846 0.0% 0 $1,584 4.4% 1.7% 476 9,878 0.0% - $1,684 6.2% 2.4%2021 176 2,846 0.0% 0 $1,823 15.1% 1.6% 476 9,878 0.0% - $1,892 12.4% 2.1%2022 176 2,846 0.0% 0 $1,760 (3.5%) 1.9% 476 9,878 0.0% - $1,938 2.4% 2.6% Average/
Total Change 4 103 3.8% 8 $1,387 57.3% 2.7% 1 48 0.5% 4 $1,400 85.1% 3.0% Source: CoStar; EPS.

Downtown Study Area
Total
Buildings Total Units
% Change,
Total Units New Units
Monthly
Rent
% Change,
Rent Asked
Vacancy
Rate
City of Salinas Multifamily Housing
Total
Buildings Total Units
% Change,
Total Units New Units
Monthly
Rent
% Change,
Rent Asked
Vacancy
Rate
Prepared by EPS 8/26/2022
25 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 3-7City of SalinasDowntown HTMA
Estimated Housing Unit Value Based on Income and Housing Costs in Monterey County (2022 in 2022$)Item AnnualAssumptions Maximum Monthly Housing Cost as % of Income [3] 30.00% A Mortgage Term (In Years) [4] 30 BMortgage Interest Rate [5] 4.00% CDown Payment as a % of Unit Value 12.00% D Formula E F = A * E G = F / 12 H [6] J = I / (1 - D)
Income Level
Extremely Low $30,500 $9,150 $763 $489 $102,413 $116,378 Very Low Income $50,850 $15,255 $1,271 $814 $170,478 $193,726Low Income $81,350 $24,405 $2,034 $1,304 $272,996 $310,223Median Income $81,600 $24,480 $2,040 $1,307 $273,729 $311,056Moderate Income $97,900 $29,370 $2,448 $1,569 $328,600 $373,410Above Moderate Income $100K $100,000 $30,000 $2,500 $1,508 $315,720 $358,773Above Moderate Income $150K $150,000 $45,000 $3,750 $2,261 $473,528 $538,100Above Moderate Income $200K $200,000 $60,000 $5,000 $3,015 $631,441 $717,546 Source: Freddie Mac; EPS.[1] EPS assumes a household size of 4, rounding the average persons per household for the City of Salinas. Refer to Table A-5 for income limits.[2] Refer to Table A-12 for detailed monthly costs calculation.[3] Assumes affordable housing prices shall be based on no more than 30% of income being applied to housing expenses. [4] Based on a 30-year fixed-rate conventional mortgage.[5][6] Estimated mortgage amounts works backwards using the monthly housing costs, see Table A-12 for details.

Interest rates are based on the average for 30-year fixed-rates from 2010 to 2020 per Freddie Mac.

Assumptions
Estimated Housing Costs
Monthly Costs
(Homeowner
Costs / Rent +
Utilites) [2]
Estimated Unit
Value
Loan
Amount
Monthly
Mortgage
Cost
I (see above assumptions B & C)
Prepared by EPS 8/26/2022
26 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table 4-1City of SalinasDowntown HTMAInclusionary Residential Development Static Pro Forma Summary Item Source Formula Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 Revenue Assumptions per Unit
Market-Rate Sales Price/Capitalized Value Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 A Affordable Sales Price/Capitalized Value Table A-3 B $126,790 $73,452 $64,916 $34,367 $354,136 $340,675 $300,136 $258,936 Cost Assumptions Per Unit
Infrastructure Burden Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 $22,001 $22,001 $27,558 $27,558 $22,672 $22,672 $24,699 $24,699 Direct Building Construction Costs Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 $90,170 $90,170 $280,698 $280,698 $326,010 $326,010 $284,520 $284,520 Indirect Costs Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 $9,017 $9,017 $28,070 $28,070 $65,202 $65,202 $56,904 $56,904Financing & Builder Profit Costs Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 $19,768 $19,768 $54,861 $54,861 $58,916 $58,916 $52,118 $52,118 Total Costs per Unit C $140,956 $140,956 $391,187 $391,187 $472,801 $472,801 $418,240 $418,240 Residual Land Value (RLV) per Unit
Market Rate D = A - C
Market Rate RLV as % of Total Market Rate Value [1] E = D / A Affordability Gap F = B - C ($14,167) ($67,504) ($326,271) ($356,820) ($118,664) ($132,126) ($118,104) ($159,304) Total Gap with Inclusionary Requirements G = D + F $19,513 ($33,824) ($335,258) ($365,807) ($203,865) ($217,327) ($84,904) ($126,104) RLV as % of Total Value with Inclusionary Requirements [1] H = G / A 11.2% (19.4%) (87.7%) (95.7%) (52.6%) (56.1%) (18.8%) (27.9%) Source: City of Salinas; EPS.[1] A prototype that would be considered feasible will have a RLV equal to about 20% to 30% of total asset value (finished lot plus structure).

19.3% (2.4%) (22.0%) 7.4%
$33,200
$174,636 $382,200 $387,600 $451,440
$33,680 ($8,987) ($85,201)
For-Sale Units + Inclusionary Options
Micro Units RD-180 RD-60 RD-60 (Condos) RD-30 (Townhomes/Rowhouses) Multifamily Renter-Occupied Units + Inclusionary Options Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
27 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT

Page 1 of 2 ends

Table 4-2City of SalinasDowntown HTMAFeasibility Analysis Pro Forma: Renter-Occupied UnitsItemDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS [1] Site Acres 1.00 - - - -No. of Units 180 - 60 -
Weighted Avreage Unit Sq. Ft. 270 875No. of Parking Spaces 0 - 0 -Gross Building Sq. Ft. 60,750 - 65,625 -Net Leasable/Saleable Sq. Ft. 48,600 - 52,500 - REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS [2]
Residential Apartment
Gross Potential Income per Year $2,245,320 7.1% $1,638,000 7.1% Less Vacancy 5.0% - - - -
Less Operating & Maintenance Expenses 25.0% - - - -Net Annual Income $1,571,724 5.0% $1,146,600 5.0% Capitalized Value
Cap Rate 5.0% - - - -
Total Building Value $31,434,480 100.0% $22,932,000 100.0% Attached For-Sale Supported Price
Sales Price - -
Less Commissions - -
Net Total For-Sale Revenue per Unit - -
TOTAL ESTIMATED SALES PRICE/CAPTIALIZED VALUE $31,434,480 100.0% $22,932,000 100.0% PER UNIT $174,636 $382,200
Renter-Occupied Units
Renter-Occupied Units
General
Assumptions
% of
Total
% of
Micro Units RD-60 Total
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
28 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT

Page 2 of 2 ends

Table 4-2City of SalinasDowntown HTMAFeasibility Analysis Pro Forma: Renter-Occupied UnitsItem Renter-Occupied Units
Renter-Occupied Units
General
Assumptions
% of
Total
% of
Micro Units RD-60 Total
COST ASSUMPTIONS [2]
Direct Building Construction Costs
Site Work $435,600 - 1.7% - 1.9%Building Construction Costs $15,795,000 62.3% $16,406,250 69.9%Total Direct Building Construction Costs $16,230,600 64.0% $16,841,850 71.8% Other Soft Costs
As a % of Direct Costs 10.0% - - - -Total Other Soft Costs $1,623,060 6.4% $1,684,185 7.2%Total Building & Development Impact Fees $3,960,173 15.6% $1,653,502 7.0%Financing Interest (7.0%, 50% LTC, 50% Outstanding) $534,439 2.1% $494,399 2.1%Fees (2.0% of loan amount) $305,394 1.2% $282,514 1.2%Total Financing Costs $839,833 3.3% $776,912 3.3% Builder Fee
As a % of All Costs 12.0% - - - -
Total Builder Fee $2,718,440 10.7% $2,514,774 10.7%
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $25,372,106 100.0% $23,471,223 100.0% PER UNIT $140,956 $391,187
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE $6,062,374 - ($539,223) -
Per Acre $6,062,374 - ($539,223) -Per Unit $33,680 ($8,987)As a % of Value 19.3% - (2.4%) - Source: EPS.[1] See Table A-1.[2] See Table A-2.

Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
29 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT

Page 1 of 2 ends

Table 4-3City of SalinasDowntown HTMAFeasibility Analysis Pro Forma: Owner-Occupied UnitsItemDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS [1] Site Acres 1.0 - - - -No. of Units 60 - 30 -
No. of Parking Spaces 0 - 0 -Gross Building Sq. Ft. 76,500 - 40,500 -Net Leasable/Saleable Sq. Ft. 61,200 - 32,400 - REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS [2]
Attached Townhome For-Sale Supported Price
Total Sales Price $24,480,000 - $14,256,000 -
Less Marketing/Commissions 5.0%
Net Total For-Sale Revenue $23,256,000 100.0% $13,543,200 100.0% TOTAL ESTIMATED SALES PRICE/CAPTIALIZED VALUE $23,256,000 100.0% $13,543,200 100.0% PER UNIT $387,600 $451,440
% of
Total
Attached Owner-Occupied Units
Owner-Occupied Units
General
Assumptions Condo RD-60
% of
Total
Townhome/
Rowhouse RD-30
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
30 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT

Page 2 of 2 ends

Table 4-3City of SalinasDowntown HTMAFeasibility Analysis Pro Forma: Owner-Occupied UnitsItem % of
Total
Attached Owner-Occupied Units
Owner-Occupied Units
General
Assumptions Condo RD-60
% of
Total
Townhome/
Rowhouse RD-30
COST ASSUMPTIONS [2]
Direct Building Construction Costs
Site Work $435,600 - 1.5% - 3.5%Building Construction Costs $19,125,000 67.4% $8,100,000 64.6%Total Direct Building Construction Costs $19,560,600 69.0% $8,535,600 68.0% Other Soft Costs
As a % of Direct Costs 20.0% - - - -Total Other Soft Costs $3,912,120 13.8% $1,707,120 13.6%Total Building & Development Impact Fees $1,360,346 4.8% $740,956 5.9%Financing Interest (7.0%, 50% LTC, 50% Outstanding) $608,410 2.1% $269,100 2.1%Fees (2.0% of loan amount) $347,663 1.2% $153,771 1.2%Total Financing Costs $956,073 3.4% $422,872 3.4% Builder Fee
As a % of All Costs 10.0% - - - -
Total Builder Fee $2,578,914 9.1% $1,140,655 9.1%
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $28,368,053 100.0% $12,547,202 100.0%PER UNIT $472,801 $418,240 RESIDUAL LAND VALUE ($5,112,053) - $995,998 -
Per Acre ($5,112,053) - $995,998 -Per Unit ($85,201) $33,200 As a % of Value (22.0%) - 7.4% -
Source: EPS.[1] See Table A-1.[2] See Table A-2.

Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
31 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22

APPENDIX A
Table A-1 Development Standards and Assumptions:

Market Rate .............................................................. 32 Table A-2 Development Cost and Revenue Assumptions ................ 33 Table A-3 Inclusionary Residential Development
Prototype Detail ........................................................ 34 Table A-4 Estimated Rent and Housing Value Based on
Income and Housing Costs .......................................... 35 Table A-5 Monterey County Income Limits .................................. 36 Table A-6 Micro Unit Comparables .............................................. 37 Table A-7 Detailed Multifamily Market Analysis ............................. 38 Table A-8 Attached Ownership Comparable Properties .................. 39 Table A-9 New Home Asking Price Comparison ............................. 40 Table A-10 Estimated Monthly Housing Costs by Category in Monterey County ....................................................... 41 DRAFT
Table A-1City of SalinasDowntown HTMADevelopment Standards and Assumptions: Market Rate Rate or Rate or Rate or Rate or
Item Percentage Amount Percentage Amount Percentage Amount Percentage AmountSite Area (Acres) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Density (DU/Acre) [1] 180.0 60.0 60.0 30.0
Height Limit (in Feet) [1] 75 75 75 35
Height Limit (in Stories) 66 6 3Market-Rate Units 100% 180 100% 60 100% 60 100% 30 Bedroom Mix % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total Studio 80% 144 25% 15 10% 6 0% 0
1 Bedroom 20% 36 25% 15 30% 18 30% 9
2 Bedroom 0% 0 50% 30 60% 36 70% 21
Total 100% 180 100% 60 100% 60 100% 30
Bedroom Mix Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft.

Studio 250 36,000 550 8,250 600 3,600 600 0
1 Bedroom 350 12,600 750 11,250 800 14,400 800 7,2002 Bedroom 0 0 1,100 33,000 1,200 43,200 1,200 25,200 Weighted Average/Net Total 270 48,600 875 52,500 1,020 61,200 1,080 32,400 Gross Building Sq. Ft. [2] - 60,750 - 65,625 - 76,500 - 40,500 Source: City of Salinas Municipal Code; EMC; EPS.
[1] Assumes Mixed Use in Central City Overlay District.[2] Applies a 80 percent efficiency factor to the net leasable square footage.

Owner-Occupied Attached
Townhome/Rowhouse RD-30
Development Assumptions:

Market Rate
Renter-Occupied Micro Units RD-180 Renter-Occupied RD-60 Owner-Occupied RD-60 Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
32 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table A-2City of SalinasDowntown HTMA
Development Cost and Revenue Assumptions
Item Assumptions Micro RD-60 RD-60 Townhome RD-30
Market-Rate Revenue Assumptions
Residential Revenue [1] per leasable (monthly)/saleable sq. ft. - $3.85 $2.60 $400.00 $440.00 Cap Rates [2]
Residential 5.00% 5.00% - -
Hard Construction Cost Assumptions
Basic Site Work/Grading per land site sq. ft. $10.00 - - - - Building Construction Cost [3] per gross building sq. ft. $260.00 $250.00 $250.00 $200.00 [1][2] Cap rates based on data for Northern California per various soures such as CBRE and CoStar.[3] Hard construction costs based on discussions with developers and architects and Saylor.com for 2020, adjusted using the index for the City of Salinas/Monterey of 90% and escalated to 2022 dollars per the 2020 to 2022 ENR Construction Cost Index of 10.2%.Multifamily rental rates based on data shown in Table A-6 and Table A-7 per CoStar and project websites. For-sale figures are based on a survey of comparable for-sale properties from RedFin as of August 2022, as shown in Table A-8, as well as new construction in Table A-9.

Source: RedFin; CoStar; CBRE Research United States Cap Rate Survey H2 2021, March 2022; Saylor; ENR; RS Means; CA Board of Equalization; Victoria Transport Policy Institute; WGI Parking Solutions; EPS.

Owner-Occupied
Cost and Revenue
Assumptions
General
Assumptions
Renter-Occupied
Multifamily Residential
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
33 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table A-3City of SalinasDowntown HTMAInclusionary Residential Development Prototype Detail Item AssumptionsUnit Count 60Unit Mix [1] % Units Value % Units Value % Units Value % Units Value % Units Value % Units Value % Units Value % Units Value Studio 1 - 80% 17 - 80% 17 - 25% 2 - 25% 2 - - 10% 1 - 10% 1 - 0% - - 0% - - One Bedroom 2 - 20% 5 - 20% 4 - 25% 2 - 25% 2 - - 30% 4 - 30% 3 - 30% 2 - 30% 2 - Two Bedroom/2 Bath 3 - 0% - - 0% - - 50% 3 - 50% 3 - - 60% 7 - 60% 5 - 70% 4 - 70% 3 - - - 12% 22 - 12% 22 - 12% 7 - 12% 7 - - 20% 12 - 15% 9 - 20% 6 - 15% 5 - .
% % % %
Very Low Unit Mix Percentage
Studio $35,600 $12,474 - - - 80% 12 $149,688 - - - 25% 1 $12,474 $112,889 10% - - - - - 0% - $0 - - - One Bedroom $40,700 $12,474 - - - 20% 3 $37,422 - - - 25% 1 $12,474 $112,889 30% 1 $112,889 - - - 30% - $0 - - - Two Bedroom/2 Bath $45,800 $12,474 - - - 0% - $0 - - - 50% 2 $24,948 $135,378 60% 1 $135,378 - - - 70% 1 $135,378 - - - - - - - - 8% 15 $187,110 - - - 8% 4 $49,896 - 4% 2 $248,267 0% - - 4% 1 $135,378 0% - - Low Unit Mix Percentage
Studio $57,025 $12,474 - - - 80% 6 $74,844 - - - 25% 1 $12,474 $181,129 10% 1 $181,129 - - - 0% - $0 - - - One Bedroom $65,100 $12,474 - - - 20% 1 $12,474 - - - 25% 1 $12,474 $181,129 30% 2 $362,258 - - - 30% 1 $181,129 - - - Two Bedroom/2 Bath $73,250 $12,474 - - - 0% - $0 - - - 50% 1 $12,474 $216,517 60% 3 $649,550 - - - 70% 2 $433,034 - - - - - - - - 4% 7 $87,318 - - - 4% 3 $37,422 - 8% 6 $1,192,937 0% - - 8% 3 $614,162 0% - - Median Unit Mix Percentage
Studio $57,100 $12,474 - - - - - - - - - - - - $181,349 - - - 10% 1 $181,349 - - - 0% - - One Bedroom $65,300 $12,474 - - - - - - - - - - - - $181,349 - - - 30% 1 $181,349 - - - 30% 1 $181,349 Two Bedroom/2 Bath $73,450 $12,474 - - - - - - - - - - - - $217,178 - - - 60% 2 $434,356 - - - 70% 1 $273,645 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6% 4 $797,055 - - - 6% 2 $454,994 Moderate Unit Mix Percentage
Studio $68,550 $12,474 80% 17 $212,058 - - - 25% 2 $24,948 - - - $217,619 10% - - 10% 1 $217,619 0% - $0 0% - - One Bedroom $78,300 $12,474 20% 5 $62,370 - - - 25% 2 $24,948 - - - $217,619 30% 1 $217,619 30% 1 $217,619 30% - $0 30% 1 $217,619Two Bedroom/2 Bath $88,100 $12,474 0% - $0 - - - 50% 3 $37,422 - - - $260,393 60% 1 $260,393 60% 2 $520,787 70% 1 $260,393 70% 1 $260,393 - - 12% 22 $274,428 - - - 12% 7 $87,318 - - - - 4% 2 $478,013 6% 4 $956,025 4% 1 $260,393 6% 2 $478,013 Work Force Unit Mix Percentage
Studio $95,178 $12,474 - - - - - - - - - - - - $311,215 10% - $0 10% - - 0% - $0 0% - - One Bedroom $105,754 $12,474 - - - - - - - - - - - - $311,215 30% 1 $311,215 30% - - 30% - $0 30% - - Two Bedroom/2 Bath $117,504 $12,474 - - - - - - - - - - - - $357,848 60% 1 $357,848 60% 1 $357,848 70% 1 $357,848 70% 1 $357,848 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4% 2 $669,063 3% 1 $357,848 4% 1 $357,848 3% 1 $357,848 Total Estimated Annual Revenue/Value - - 22 $274,428 - 22 $274,428 - 7 $87,318 - 7 $87,318 - - 12 $2,588,279 - 9 $2,110,928 - 6 $1,367,782 - 5 $1,290,855 Weighted Avg. Residential Per Unit $8,093 $4,897 $4,328 $2,291 $354,136 $340,675 $300,136 $258,936Less Vacancy and Maintenance 25% $6,069 $3,673 $3,246 $1,718 NA NA NA NACapitalization Rate 5.0% $121,390 $73,452 $64,916 $34,367 NA NA NA NA Housing Impact Fee $5,400 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Source: City of Salinas; State of California Department of Finance; State of California Housing and Community Development (HCD); EPS. [1] Household sizes per HCD determination of projects with federal assistance.[2] Household income per HCS 2021 Income limits.[3] See Table A-4 for estimated unit values.

Inclusionary Residential
Prototypes
180
Option 1
RD-60
Option 2
RD-60 (Condos)
60 Option 1 Option 2
Micro Units RD-180
Household
Size
Annual
Rent
Household
Income [2]
Assumptions
Multifamily Renter-Occupied Units
Option 1 Option 2
For-Sale
Unit Value
For-Sale Units Inclusionary Options
RD-30 (Townhomes/Rowhouses)
Option 1 Option 2
30 Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
34 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table A-4City of SalinasDowntown HTMAEstimated Rent and Housing Value Based on Income and Housing Costs Item AnnualAssumptions Maximum Monthly Housing Cost as % of Income [3] 30.00% A Mortgage Term (In Years) [4] 30 BMortgage Interest Rate [5] 4.00% CDown Payment as a % of Unit Value 5.00% D Formula E F = A * E G = F / 12 H J = I / (1 - D)
Income Level
Extremely Low $21,350 $6,405 $534 $308 $64,409 $67,799
Very Low Income $35,600 $10,680 $890 $512 $107,244 $112,889Low Income $57,025 $17,108 $1,426 $822 $172,072 $181,129 Median Income $57,100 $17,130 $1,428 $823 $172,282 $181,349 Moderate Income $68,550 $20,565 $1,714 $987 $206,738 $217,619 Work Force $95,178 $28,553 $2,379 $1,412 $295,655 $311,215 Income Level
Extremely Low $24,400 $7,320 $610 $368 $76,977 $81,028
Very Low Income $40,700 $12,210 $1,018 $614 $128,609 $135,378 Low Income $65,100 $19,530 $1,628 $982 $205,691 $216,517 Median Income $65,300 $19,590 $1,633 $985 $206,319 $217,178 Moderate Income $78,300 $23,490 $1,958 $1,181 $247,374 $260,393Work Force $105,754 $31,726 $2,644 $1,623 $339,956 $357,848 Income Level
Extremely Low $27,450 $8,235 $686 $428 $89,649 $94,368
Very Low Income $45,800 $13,740 $1,145 $715 $149,660 $157,537 Low Income $73,250 $21,975 $1,831 $1,143 $239,309 $251,905Median Income $73,450 $22,035 $1,836 $1,146 $239,938 $252,566Moderate Income $88,100 $26,430 $2,203 $1,375 $288,009 $303,168 Income Level
Extremely Low $30,500 $9,150 $763 $489 $102,427 $107,817 Very Low Income $50,850 $15,255 $1,271 $814 $170,501 $179,475 Low Income $81,350 $24,405 $2,034 $1,304 $273,033 $287,403Median Income $81,600 $24,480 $2,040 $1,307 $273,766 $288,175Moderate Income $97,900 $29,370 $2,448 $1,569 $328,645 $345,942 value
Source: Freddie Mac; EPS.[1] Refer to Table A-5 for income limits.[2] Refer to Table A-10 for detailed monthly costs calculation.[3] EPS assumes affordable housing prices shall be based on no more than 30% of income being applied to housing expenses.[4] Based on a 30-year fixed-rate conventional mortgage.[5] The 4.0% interest rate estimate is based on the average for 30-year fixed-rates from 2010 to 2020 per Freddie Mac. 2-Person Household3-Person Household4-Person Household
Annual
Income [1]
Monthly
Mortgage
Cost
Estimated Unit
Value
Estimated Housing Costs
Loan
Amount
Monthly Costs
(Homeowner
Costs / Rent +
Utilites) [2]
I (see above
assumptions B & C)
1-Person Household
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
35 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table A-5City of SalinasDowntown HTMA
Monterey County Income Limits (2022 in 2022$)Income Level % of AMI 1 2 3 [1] 4 Extremely Low ≤ 30% AMI 30% $21,350 $24,400 $27,450 $30,500 Very Low Income >30% to ≤50% AMI 50% $35,600 $40,700 $45,800 $50,850Low Income >50% to ≤80% AMI 80% $57,025 $65,100 $73,250 $81,350 Median Income >80% to ≤100% AMI 100% $57,100 $65,300 $73,450 $81,600 Moderate Income >100% AMI to ≤120% AMI 120% $68,550 $78,300 $88,100 $97,900Work Force >120% AMI to ≤160% AMI 160% $95,178 $105,754 $117,504 $130,560 limits
[1] The average persons per household for the City of Salinas is 3.6 per the 2022 DOF.Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development FY 2022 Income Limits; State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, "State Income Limits for 2022"; EPS.

Monterey County Income Limits
Based on HH Size:

Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
36 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table A-6City of SalinasDowntown HTMAMicro Unit Comparables Average Property Number of Average
Number Unit Size Size Parking Spaces Year Average Rent per Item Address of Units (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) Acres DU/Acre Spaces per Unit Built Rent Sq. Ft.Micro Unit Apartments 19J Sacramento 175 484 80,000 12,807 0.3 595.2 50 0.3 2019 $2,082 $4.30Sonrisa [1] Sacramento 58 267 19,358 11,326 0.3 223.1 0 0.0 2023 $887 $3.32259 Meridian Ave [1] San Jose 226 400 122,300 56,192 1.3 175.2 162 0.7 2024 $1,150 $2.88388 Fulton San Francisco 69 488 50,750 12,520 0.3 240.1 0 0.0 2016 For-Sale NA Total/Average/Weighted Average 528 425 68,102 23,211 0.5 328.1 53 0.4 2021 $1,280 $3.01 Source: CoStar; Sacramento Business Journal; project websites; The Sacramento Bee; City of San Jose; Mercury News; EPS.[1] These projects are 100% affordable.

Land Area
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
37 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table A-7City of SalinasDowntown HTMADetailed Multifamily Comparables Market Analysis Average Property Number of Average
Number Unit Size Size Parking Spaces Year Average Rent per Property [1] Address of Units (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) Acres DU/Acre Spaces per Unit Built Rent Sq. Ft.

Apartment Complex
- 16 Natividad Rd 48 528 43,220 65,301 1.5 32.0 - - 1966 $1,226 $2.32Tahitian Village Apartments 976 W Alisal St 35 691 31,584 46,801 1.1 32.6 35 1.0 1964 $1,473 $2.13The Reef Apartments 333 W Laurel Dr 54 680 33,004 72,000 1.7 32.7 69 1.3 1964 $1,533 $2.25 Northridge Manor Apartments 105 N Prado St 32 700 22,400 42,253 1.0 33.0 42 1.3 1978 $1,515 $2.16The Courtyard Apartments 22 Capitol St 40 710 28,400 52,799 1.2 33.0 40 1.0 1984 $1,846 $2.60Maple Manor Apartments 300-320 Maple St 24 618 14,793 31,459 0.7 33.2 27 1.1 1966 $1,075 $1.74East Park Apartments 904-908 Acosta Plz 36 720 25,920 47,149 1.1 33.3 58 1.6 1985 $1,934 $2.69The Gables 2186-2198 Brutus Cir 60 816 58,952 78,538 1.8 33.3 120 2.0 1989 $1,717 $2.10California Pride 454 California St 15 945 20,952 19,602 0.5 33.3 34 2.3 - $1,357 $1.44 93 North 93 Castro St 104 695 71,275 135,297 3.1 33.5 118 1.1 1986 $2,264 $3.26The Park Terrace Apartments 619 E Romie Ln 52 613 30,170 67,514 1.5 33.6 - - 1963 $1,691 $2.76Pointe at Northridge 424-436 Noice Dr 187 789 149,415 231,739 5.3 35.2 257 1.4 1979 $2,146 $2.72Glenhaven Apartments 415 Williams Rd 22 932 15,936 27,007 0.6 35.5 30 1.4 1977 $1,328 $1.42- 401 Monterey St 16 452 8,090 18,652 0.4 37.4 21 1.3 2019 $660 $1.46 - 270 Harvest St 26 800 24,794 30,100 0.7 37.6 30 1.2 1964 $1,440 $1.80 Pointe at Westlake 60 Stephanie Dr 139 593 100,650 157,761 3.6 38.4 18 0.1 1975 $1,765 $2.98 Sheridan Apartments 1450 N 1st St 116 749 93,760 130,680 3.0 38.7 166 1.4 2019 $2,248 $3.00 - 1009 Sieber Ave 18 792 14,604 19,936 0.5 39.3 26 1.4 1980 $1,176 $1.48Park View Apartments 715 Elton Pl 28 575 22,282 27,417 0.6 44.5 30 1.1 1971 $1,135 $1.97Nissen Village Apartments 75 Nissen Rd 70 530 38,336 67,082 1.5 45.5 70 1.0 1976 $1,450 $2.74 Kipling Manor Apartments 82-90 Kip Dr 92 791 132,016 71,918 1.7 55.7 117 1.3 1993 $1,615 $2.04Park View Apartments 707 Elton Pl 54 660 41,895 39,653 0.9 59.3 30 0.6 1986 $1,982 $3.00- 618 N Sanborn Rd 12 675 14,188 5,798 0.1 90.2 16 1.3 1979 $1,335 $1.98Terrace View Apartments 787-791 Garner Ave 45 768 34,541 12,380 0.3 158.3 56 1.2 1989 $1,030 $1.34Total/Average/Weighted Average 1,325 701 44,632 62,452 1.4 43.0 64 1.1 1981 $1,747 $2.49 Source: CoStar; EPS.[1] Includes properties with 10 or more units, and excludes properties without a listed asking rent price.

Land Area
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
38 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table A-8City of SalinasDowntown HTMAAttached Ownership Comparable PropertiesItem Lot Sq. Ft. Condominium 689 Las Casitas Dr 2002 1,513 - August-10-2022 $509,000 $336.42 705 Garner Ave #103 2004 988 - June-14-2022 $362,000 $366.40711 Garner Ave #103 2004 988 - February-15-2022 $355,000 $359.3118235 Caldwell St 2017 1,847 - January-27-2022 $725,000 $392.5314814 Kit Carson Dr 2018 1,330 - Jan-00 $284,000 $213.5317619 Reynolds St 2019 1,847 - April-15-2022 $796,000 $430.9714881 Kit Carson Dr 2019 2,199 - May-4-2022 $800,000 $363.8014746 Kit Carson Dr 2019 1,726 - March-24-2022 $750,000 $434.53Total/Weighted Average 12,438 $620,616 $368.00 Townhome
1860 Cherokee Dr #2 1982 1,621 1,961 October-25-2021 $525,000 $323.87 1832 Cherokee Dr #4 1982 1,243 2,052 August-20-2021 $450,000 $362.031883 Cherokee Dr #3 1983 1,083 550 May-12-2022 $407,500 $376.27142 Nissen Rd #1 1985 1,358 2,555 September-17-2021 $560,000 $412.37120 Nissen Rd #4 1985 1,358 2,495 November-16-2021 $550,000 $405.01102 Nissen Rd 1985 1,293 3,433 February-18-2022 $595,000 $460.172360 N Main St #1 1986 1,152 742 September-30-2021 $342,000 $296.88949 Nantucket Blvd #18 1996 1,597 3,060 February-3-2022 $620,000 $388.2317819 Banks St 2018 1,847 1,181 March-31-2022 $700,000 $378.9916230 E Garrison 2019 2,199 1,462 September-10-2021 $750,000 $341.06Total/Weighted Average 14,751 1,949 $573,160 $373.00 Source: The Gregory Group; EPS.

Attached Projects
Year Built
Unit
Sq. Ft. Date Sold Sale Price
Price per
Sq. Ft.

Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
39 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table A-9
City of Salinas
Downtown HTMA
New Home Asking Price Comparison
Starting
Asking Asking
Project Sales Sales Price
Project-Location Type Price Sq. Ft. per Sq. Ft. Bed Bath The Dunes - Marina, CA
Beach House
Plan 1 [1] SFR Detached $1,114,500 2,315 $481.43 3 2.5
Plan 2 [1] SFR Detached $1,249,000 2,401 $520.20 4 3.0
Plan 3 SFR Detached $1,233,000 2,432 $506.99 4 3.0
Average Beach House $1,198,833 2,383 $503.15 4 3.0
Sea House
Plan 1 SFR Attached $847,033 1,581 $535.76 2 2.5
Plan 2 [1] SFR Attached $865,440 1,735 $498.81 3 2.5
Plan 3 SFR Attached $912,651 1,969 $463.51 3 2.5
Plan 4 [1] SFR Attached $910,276 1,919 $474.35 3 2.5
Average Sea House $883,850 1,801 $490.76 3 2.5
Surf House
Plan 1 SFR Detached $995,378 2,012 $494.72 3 2.5
Plan 2 [1] SFR Detached $1,028,945 2,222 $463.07 3 2.5
Plan 3 [1] SFR Detached $1,061,452 2,280 $465.55 4 3.0
Average Surf House $1,028,592 2,171 $473.71 3 2.5
Average The Dunes $1,021,768 2,087 $489.68 3 2.5
Vintage Estates - Soledad, CA
Residence 1550 SFR Detached $581,990 1,550 $375.48 3 2.0 Residence 1803 SFR Detached $604,990 1,803 $335.55 3 2.5 Residence 1994 SFR Detached $619,990 1,994 $310.93 3 2.5 Residence 2131 SFR Detached $629,990 2,131 $295.63 3 2.5 Residence 2438 SFR Detached $662,990 2,438 $271.94 4 3.0 Average Vintage Estates $619,990 1,983 $312.62 3 2.5
The Enclave - Seaside, CA
Residence 1 SFR Detached $1,748,000 2,941 $594.36 4 4.5 Residence 2 SFR Detached $2,025,000 3,456 $585.94 4 4.5 Residence 3 SFR Detached Sold Out 3,456 NA 4 3.5
Residence 4 SFR Detached $2,202,500 3,724 $591.43 4 4.5 Residence 5 SFR Detached Sold Out 3,533 NA 4 3.5
Residence 6 SFR Detached $1,947,000 3,033 $641.94 3 3.5 Average The Enclave $1,980,625 3,357 $589.97 4 4.0
Roberts Ranch - Hollister, CA
Plan 1478 SFR Detached NA 1,478 NA 3 2.0
Plan 1896 [1] SFR Detached $815,000 1,896 $429.85 3 2.0 Plan 1967 SFR Detached $825,000 1,967 $419.42 4 2.0
Plan 2209 [1] SFR Detached NA 2,209 NA 3 2.0
Plan 2273 SFR Detached NA 2,273 NA 4 2.5
Plan 2321 SFR Detached NA 2,321 NA 4 2.5
Plan 2525 SFR Detached NA 2,525 NA 5 3.0
Plan 2775 SFR Detached NA 2,775 NA 5 3.0
Plan 3465 SFR Detached NA 3,465 NA 5 3.5
Average Roberts Ranch $820,000 2,323 $352.96 4 2.5
Montclair - Hollister, CA
Residence 1 SFR Detached $780,990 1,628 $479.72 3 2.0
Residence 2 SFR Detached $803,990 1,743 $461.27 3 2.5
Residence 3 SFR Detached $841,990 2,054 $409.93 4 2.5
Residence 4 SFR Detached $857,990 2,176 $394.30 4 2.5
Residence 5 SFR Detached $871,990 2,320 $375.86 4 3.0
Residence 6 SFR Detached $874,990 2,493 $350.98 4 3.0
Residence 7 SFR Detached $894,990 2,833 $315.92 5 3.0
Residence 8 SFR Detached $914,990 3,153 $290.20 5 3.5
Average Montclair $855,240 2,300 $371.84 4 3.0
new_sales
Source: Shea Homes; Legacy Homes; Mertiage Homes; KB Homes; EPS. [1] Model plan includes option for 1 more bedrooms.

Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
40 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 DRAFT
Table A-10City of SalinasDowntown HTMA
Estimated Monthly Housing Costs by Category in Monterey County (2022 in 2022$)Item Assumptions TotalAnnual Property Taxes and Homeowners Insurance 2.00%Mortgage Insurance as a % of Loan Amt. [1] 1.50%Income Level Annual Income [2] Extremely Low $21,350 $489 $128 $146 $763
Very Low Income $50,850 $814 $213 $244 $1,271Low Income $81,350 $1,304 $341 $389 $2,034Median Income $81,600 $1,307 $342 $391 $2,040Moderate Income $97,900 $1,569 $411 $468 $2,448Above Moderate Income $100K $100,000 $1,508 $395 $598 $2,500Above Moderate Income $150K $150,000 $2,261 $592 $897 $3,750Above Moderate Income $200K $200,000 $3,015 $789 $1,196 $5,000 Source: Realtor.com; Zillow; bankrate.com; wellsfargo.com; chase.com; nerwallet.com; EPS.[1][2] Refer to Table A-5 for income limits.

Estimated Monthly Cost
Mortgage
Payment
Mortgage
Insurance
Taxes and
Insurance
Mortgage insurance rate is based on an average of the estimated range from 0.55% to 2.25%. Rates are based on credit and down payment amounts.

Prepared by EPS 8/30/2022
41 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222102 Salinas Updated Housing Target Market Analysis\Model\222102_Salinas_DowntownHTMA_08-25-22 SRO S 1B 2B 3B 4B 8B Extremely
Low
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Plaza Grande 50 E. Market St 95 95 95 0 95 0 0 2003 40 12/1/2043 Forester Building 369 Main St 10 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 2000 20 4/12/2020* Pajaro Triplex 139 Pajaro St 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 1996 30 5/6/2026 Lupine Gradens 118 E. Alisal St 20 20 20 0 20 0 0 2006 30 8/8/2036 California House 436 California St 8 3 5 8 0 8 0 0 2002 30 7/3/2032 Sun Rose Apartments

439 Soledad St 11 7 3 1 10 0 9 1 0 2022 30 2/11/2036
Tynan Village 323 Front St 171 8 25 32 8 106 0 33 73 0 2008 55 12/4/2063 Gateway 25 Lincoln St 52 25 21 6 51 6 24 14 7 2012 55 12/17/2068 401 Monterey Street 401 Monterey St 16 16 2 0 2 0 0 2019 55 1/10/2074 Steinbeck Commons 10 Lincoln 100 99 1 99 0 0 99 0 1999 / 2021 55 1/1/2076 Total 486 131 51 155 41 8 0 1 394 6 191 190 7 * Affordability Period Expired 394 SRO S 1B 2B 3B 4B 8B Extremely
Low
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Haciendas Phase I 201-233 Calle Cebu 53 9 27 14 3 52 38 14 2013 55 1/8/2068 Haciendas Phase II 221, 225, 237, 241 Calle Cebu 46 6 20 17 3 45 2 43 2014 55 6/30/2068 Hacienda Phase III - Hikari 131 E. Rossi Street 50 19 16 15 49 49 2019 30 3/18/2049 Haciendas Phase IV - Dai-Ichi 34-54 Rossi Street 41 41 40 40 2016 30 3/17/2045 Moon Gate Plaza 21 Soledad St 90 81 4 5 88 12 76 2020 55 11/24/2075 Catalyst Apartments 235 Martella St 5 5 5 5 2022 15 11/18/2020 Total 285 81 0 84 68 46 6 0 279 0 52 227 0
Bedrooms Income Level
Updated Table 5-1 Housing Units in Downtown (Central City Overlay) Between 1996 - 2022 Property Name Total
Units
Property Address Year
Constructed
Affordability
Term
Restricted
Expiration
No. of
Restricted
Units
Housing Units Near Downtown Between 2013- 2022
Property Name Property Address Total
Units
Bedrooms No. of
Restricted
Units
Income Level Year
Constructed
Affordability
Term
Restricted
Expiration
13 14
9 10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
11 12
15 162
Downtown Core Area
Map Legend
City Restricted Projects
123456789
10 Plaza GrandeForester Building*Pajaro TriplexLupine GardensSun Rose Tynan Village 1112
131415
Haciendas Phase IIHaciendas Phase III - HikariHaciendas Phase IV - Dai-IchiMoon Gate Plaza401 Monterey StreetCatalyst ApartmentsGatewayHaciendas Phase ICalifornia House CTCAC Restricted Projects
16 Steinbeck Commons
Downtown Neighborhood Area
Downtown Neighborhood Area
(Continues to the South)
* Affordability Period Expired

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE

STUDY SESSION
Megan Hunter, Community Development Director &
Rod Powell, Planning Manager
City Council
September 13, 2022
Background
 Nearly 800 housing units (rental and
ownership)
 1992 – 1
st Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
 2005 amendment increased inclusionary
percentages
 No inclusionary units built under 2005
ordinance
 Update to ordinance initiated in 2014
 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
formed of stakeholders
 Current ordinance adopted on June 6, 2017
Discussion
 2017 ordinance amendment took 2½ years to complete
 Goal: Support developer-friendly options to facilitate housing production and result in more affordable housing through:
 Flexibility
 Market informed alternatives
 Regulations that encourage on-site development
 Regulations informed by:
 Community Engagement and Input
 Downtown Vibrancy Plan
 2017 Housing Target Market Analysis
On-site Inclusionary Options
On-site For Sale On-Site Rental Mixed For-Sale/Rental
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
20% 15% 12% 20%
Very Low 4% not required 8% 4% Rental / Option to pay impact fees Low 8% not required 4% 8% Rental / Option to pay impact fees Median not required 6% not required not required
Moderate 4% 6% not required 4% Ownership
Workforce 4% 3% not required 4% Ownership
Inclusionary Ordinance Provisions
 In-lieu Fees and Rental Housing Impact Fees
 $14.05 per square foot for ownership housing
 $2.40 per square foot for rental housing, plus 12% of units available to Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
 Ordinance applicable to:
 Developments of 10 or more new, for-sale residential units  Subdivision of property into 10 or more lots
 Additions/alterations to existing structure to create 10 or more new units  Requires approval of Affordable Housing Plan
 West Area and Central Area Specific Plans have Development Agreements that lock in the 2017 ordinance
Ordinance Exemptions
 Creating fewer than 10 additional units or lots
 Development Agreements executed prior to June 6, 2017  Monte Bella (Mountain View) followed 1992 ordinance
 Developments with a submitted, complete Planning or Building permit and full payment of application fees prior to June 6, 2017 and compliant with predecessor ordinance
 Developments in the Downtown Area (Central City Overlay District) Downtown Area (Central City Overlay) Exemption
 Adopted Downtown Vibrancy Plan called out exemption for Downtown to promote housing development
 395 housing units built in Downtown have restricted rents  Market-rate housing is desirable for retail businesses  Other favorable policies may not be enough to encourage housing development  Absence of a Downtown Area exemption greatly reduces the profitability of developments
 There are few opportunity sites left in the Downtown
 Downtown housing opportunities promoting market rate housing should be a goal in evaluating and modifying all City policies
 Only 24 market rate units built over the last few years Affordable Housing Units in/near Downtown
SRO S 1B 2B 3B 4B 8B
Extremely
Low
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Plaza Grande 50 E. Market St 95 95 95 0 95 0 0 2003 40 12/1/2043 Forester Building 369 Main St 10 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 2000 20 4/12/2020* Pajaro Triplex 139 Pajaro St 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 1996 30 5/6/2026 Lupine Gradens 118 E. Alisal St 20 20 20 0 20 0 0 2006 30 8/8/2036 California House 436 California St 8 3 5 8 0 8 0 0 2002 30 7/3/2032 Sun Rose Apartments
(Formerly Soledad House)
439 Soledad St 11 7 3 1 10 0 9 1 0 2022 30 2/11/2036
Tynan Village 323 Front St 171 8 25 32 8 106 0 33 73 0 2008 55 12/4/2063 Gateway 25 Lincoln St 52 25 21 6 51 6 24 14 7 2012 55 12/17/2068 401 Monterey Street 401 Monterey St 16 16 2 0 2 0 0 2019 55 1/10/2074 Steinbeck Commons 10 Lincoln 100 99 1 99 0 0 99 0 1999 / 2021 55 1/1/2076 Total 486 131 51 155 41 8 0 1 394 6 191 190 7 * Affordability Period Expired SRO S 1B 2B 3B 4B 8B Extremely
Low
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Haciendas Phase I 201-233 Calle Cebu 53 9 27 14 3 52 38 14 2013 55 1/8/2068 Haciendas Phase II 221, 225, 237, 241 Calle Cebu 46 6 20 17 3 45 2 43 2014 55 6/30/2068 Hacienda Phase III - Hikari 131 E. Rossi Street 50 19 16 15 49 49 2019 30 3/18/2049 Haciendas Phase IV - Dai-Ichi 34-54 Rossi Street 41 41 40 40 2016 30 3/17/2045 Moon Gate Plaza 21 Soledad St 90 81 4 5 88 12 76 2020 55 11/24/2075 Catalyst Apartments 235 Martella St 5 5 5 5 2022 15 11/18/2020 Total 285 81 0 84 68 46 6 0 279 0 52 227 0
Housing Units Near Downtown Between 2013- 2022
Property Name Property Address Total
Units
Bedrooms No. of
Restricted
Units
Income Level Year
Constructed
Affordability
Term
Restricted
Expiration
Bedrooms Income Level
Updated Table 5-1 Housing Units in Downtown (Central City Overlay) Between 1996 - 2022 Property Name Total
Units
Property Address Year
Constructed
Affordability
Term
Restricted
Expiration
No. of
Restricted
Units
Map Legend
Downtown Core Area
Downtown Neighborhood Area 15
City Restricted Projects
CTCAC Restricted Projects
1 Plaza Grande
2 Forester Building*
3 Pajaro Triplex
4 Lupine Gardens
5 California House
6 Sun Rose
7 Tynan Village
8 Gateway
9 Haciendas Phase I
10 9
12 11
13 10 Haciendas Phase II
11 Haciendas Phase III - Hikari
12 Haciendas Phase IV - Dai-Ichi 16
13 Moon Gate Plaza 8
1 14 401 Monterey Street
15 Catalyst Apartments
16 Steinbeck Commons 3
* Affordability Period Expired
4 7
2 14
5 6
Downtown Neighborhood Area
(Continues to the South)
Map of Downtown Area
Affordable Housing Projects
2017 Housing Target Market Analysis
 Demand for ownership and rental residential projects
 Consumer preference for market rate infill housing
 Traction for adaptive reuse projects
 Significant development risks:
 Public safety
 Homelessness
 Lack of open space
 Low school performance
 Traffic
 Untested market
 Housing incentives to reduce costs needed
2022 Housing Target Market Analysis Update
 Inclusionary housing would constrain momentum
 Salinas market has become more expensive since Covid-19  Ownership less affordable, rental more affordable
 Construction costs are extremely high
 Higher density market rate rental and ownership have negative residual value
 Micro-rental units show best project feasibility
 Downtown Area exemption should remain in place
Timing for Inclusionary Housing Update
 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance re-evaluated every 5 years  Review of ordinance due in 2022
 Staff capacity severely limited:
 COVID 19 Funding
 Project Roomkey
 Project Homekey
 Emergency Rental Assistance Program
 6
th Cycle of Housing Element
 Scheduled to begin update of ordinance in summer 2023  During update of ordinance, ability to conduct “deeper dive” into Downtown Exemption
Questions?

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING

DOWNTOWN EXEMPTION
[SALINAS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17-8(d)]
Megan Hunter, Community Development Director &
Rod Powell, Planning Manager
City Council
October 18, 2022
Background of Downtown Exemption
 2015 Downtown Vibrancy Plan identified a high concentration of affordable, deed restricted housing units in Downtown area and encouraged development of market–rate housing as desirable for retail businesses.
 2017 HTMA identified significant market risks to Downtown housing development including crime/public safety, homelessness, lack of open space, low school performance, traffic, and an untested market.

Map of Downtown Area
Affordable Housing Projects
2017 Housing Target Market Analysis
 There is substantial demand for near-term ownership and rental residential projects in Downtown.
 Consumer preference exists for market rate infill housing opportunities.  There is traction for Downtown adaptive reuse projects.  There are significant market risks to Downtown housing development including crime/public safety, homelessness, lack of open space, low school performance, traffic, and an untested market.
 The City should incorporate housing incentives that might contribute to development cost reductions to improve the market for downtown development including the exemption to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Background of Downtown Exemption
 2018 Adaptive Reuse Ordinance incentivizes the conversion of older, underutilized commercial buildings to residential use, but alone these incentives may not be enough to encourage housing development.
 2022 HTMA updated in response to City Council request to repeal the Downtown Exemption.
2022 Housing Target Market Analysis Update
 Implementing inclusionary housing in the Downtown Area would constrain the current momentum of residential development in the Downtown.  The housing market in Salinas has become more expensive since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.
 Home ownership is becoming less affordable as housing prices continue to increase, rental units generally present a more affordable option for residents.  Current construction costs are extremely high.
 Market rate rental and ownership RD-60 prototypes both have a negative residual value land value.
 Micro-rental units show the best project feasibility.

Alternatives Available to City Council

1. Leave the downtown exemption in place pending a more comprehensive review of the entire Inclusionary Ordinance as a part of the Housing Element Update.
 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to be re-evaluated every 5 years  Review of ordinance due in 2022
 Staff capacity severely limited:
 Homeless Services Implementation and Grant Administration  Emergency Rental Assistance Program
 Housing Production
 6th Cycle of Housing Element
 Scheduled to begin update of ordinance in summer 2023  During update of ordinance, ability to conduct “deeper dive” into Downtown Exemption Alternatives Available to City Council

2. Repeal the downtown exemption.
a. Based on findings supported by an analysis of market conditions.  The 2022 HTMA update findings recommend downtown exemption should remain in place.  Current market conditions do not support a repeal.
 Therefore, staff does not recommend the City Council choose this option. b. Repeal Section 17-8(d) in its entirety, thereby removing it from the Municipal Code.
 Action must still be based on findings, but findings are not required to be based on an analysis of market conditions.
 Council no longer to approve an exemption based on then current market conditions by Resolution. A new ordinance would be required.

Alternatives Available to City Council

3. Amend Section 17-8(d) to apply only to adaptive reuse residential developments in the downtown. The downtown exemption would no longer apply to new construction residential development.
 Conversion of older, in some cases historic, commercial buildings to a residential use is costly.  2017 HTMA identified incentives needed to reduce costs.  Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (2018)
 2022 HTMA found micro-rental units show best project feasibility.  Still an unproven market – The conversion of The Californian to 40 units unable to pencil.  City-owned surface parking lots are opportunity sites for new construction.  Disposition and Development Agreement would include terms and conditions, including an Affordable Housing Plan.

Alternatives Available to City Council

4. The City Council may otherwise direct staff how to proceed regarding the downtown exemption.

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-581, Version: 1
Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP No. 9720
Approve a Resolution approving the Plans and Specifications for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP No. 9720; and authorizing issuance of an Invitation to Bidders, with bids to be opened on November 22, 2022.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/12/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2022
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, P.E., L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ELISE RAMIREZ, P.E., SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER

JONATHAN ESTEBAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, CIP NO. 9720
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution:

1. Approving Plans and Specifications for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP No. 9720; and

2. Authorizing issuance of an Invitation to Bidders, with bids to be opened on November 22, 2022
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020, the City of Salinas declared a local emergency in an effort to limit the impacts and exposure of the COVID-19 Pandemic. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act, which provided the City with $51,567,313 in COVID-19 relief funds. On September 14, 2021, City Council approved Resolution 22175 accepting American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.

On November 16, 2021, City Council approved Resolution 22250 appropriating the ARPA funds to the government services identified under the Salinas Recovery Plan. Of the $51,567,313 ARPA relief funds, Resolution 22250 allocated $6 million to sidewalk repairs under Public Infrastructure with a majority to be spent in the 93905 and 93906 zip codes due to having the highest number of COVID-19 cases.

The Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP No. 9720 is a multi-funded citywide sidewalk repair project which identifies street locations within the 93905 and 93906 zip codes to be paid for with ARPA funds as intended by Resolution 22250 and additional street locations outside of the 93905 and 93906 zip codes to be paid for with the existing CIP 9720 fund balance (approximately $1.12 million) for sidewalk repairs and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements.

The locations for repairs were selected based on the City’s backlog of sidewalk repairs list, resident usage, and ADA mandates for accessibility. Staff recommends approving a resolution to approve Page | 2
the Plans and Specifications for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP No. 9720 and authorize the issuance of an Invitation to Bidders, with a Bid Opening Date of November 22, 2022.

BACKGROUND:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020, the City of Salinas declared a local emergency in an effort to limit the impacts and exposure of the COVID-19 Pandemic. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act, which provides the City with $51,567,313 in COVID-19 relief funds. On September 14, 2021, City Council approved Resolution 22175 accepting all American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.

On November 16, 2021, City Council approved Resolution 22250 appropriating the ARPA funds to the government services identified under the Salinas Recovery Plan. City Council appropriated $12 million into Public Infrastructure which includes sidewalk repairs, street repair, and traffic safety. More specifically, $6 million of the $51,567,313 ARPA funds received were allocated to sidewalk repairs with a majority to be spent in 93905 and 93906 zip codes. Additionally, Staff identified the existing CIP 9720 fund balance had approximately $1.12 million dollars and determined these funds could be spent outside of the ARPA funded zip codes in an effort to package a broader Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project. Therefore, the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP No. 9720 is a multi-funded citywide sidewalk repair project with the appropriated $6 million dollars of ARPA funds as intended by Resolution 22250 and additional locations outside of the 93905 and 93906 zip codes to be paid for with the existing CIP 9720 fund balance (approximately $1.12 million) for sidewalk repairs and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements.

This project is a continuation of the City’s effort to repair and/or rehabilitate miscellaneous streetrelated work in areas that are deteriorated, damaged, in need of repair, and/or make improvements to meet current state or federal ADA requirements. The methodology utilized to select the sidewalk repair locations or ADA compliance improvements is based on the City’s backlog of sidewalk service requests/repairs list, resident usage, and ADA mandates for accessibility. The project scope of work includes but is not limited to: removal and replacement of damaged concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter, and driveway approaches; grinding of sidewalk offsets, installation of ADA-compliant pedestrian curb ramps, pruning of tree roots required for concrete repairs, removal of unstable street trees, and planting new street trees where existing conditions are appropriate.

The Plans and Specifications for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP 9720 are now complete and ready for bid advertisement with a bid opening date of November 22, 2022.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The City of Salinas has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301(c), Class I) because the majority of the work will be maintenance of concrete sidewalks, curb and gutters.

Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 as all exceptions do not relate to the project scope of work for this project.

Page | 3
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This project addresses the City Council’s Goals of “Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability” by investing in the sidewalk repair program.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The majority of the coordination is within the Public Works Department. The Divisions working together are the Engineering Division and Maintenance (Urban Forestry and Streets Divisions) for updates and coordination on the Sidewalk Repair request list, evaluation of tree roots, and tracking of the trees removed/replaced.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:
$6,000,000 of ARPA funds were allocated into CIP 3911.50.9720 with a majority of the funds to be spent in 93905 and 93906 zip codes.

Table 1: Sidewalk Repair Project Available Funds
Funding Source Appropriations Year-to-Date
Expenditures
Year-to-Date
Encumbrances
Available
Funds
1000 – General Fund $759,000.00 $30,929.59 $16,203.41 $711,866.64 1200 – Measure G $791,012.06 $283,908.06 $282,630.68 $224,473.32 2510 – Measure X
Transportation Safety $515,587.59 $226,682.93 $180,442.91 $180,461.75 5202 – Special
Construction Assist – MX
Bond
$655,986.43 $653,816.05 $1,911.83 $258.55
Subtotal Balance $1,117,060.26
ARPA funds $5,992,768.02 0 0 $5,992,768.02
Total Balance $7,109,828.28
Table 2: Sidewalk Repair Project Estimated Construction Costs Project Estimated
Construction Cost
Contingencies
(10%)
Eng./Insp.
(10%) Total Cost
Base Bid 1 (ARPA) $7,277,452 $472,745 $472,745 $5,672,492 Base Bid 2 - 6 $1,183872 $118,387 $118,387 $1,420,646
Admin Overhead $50,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $7,143,589
Projects will be adjusted based on bids and available funds.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Project Location Map
Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)
CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, CIP NO. 9720
WHEREAS, On Tuesday, March 17, 2020, the City of Salinas declared a local emergency in an effort to limit the impacts and exposure of the COVID-19 Pandemic. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act, which provides the City with $51,567,313 in COVID-19 relief funds. On September 14, 2021, City Council approved Resolution 22175 accepting all American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds; and WHEREAS, On November 16, 2021, City Council approved Resolution 22250 appropriating the ARPA funds to the government services identified under the Salinas Recovery Plan. Of the $51,567,313 ARPA relief funds, Resolution 22250 allocated $6 million to sidewalk repairs under Public Infrastructure, with a majority of the funds to be spent in 93905 and 93906 zip codes due to having the higher number of COVID-19 cases.; and WHEREAS, staff identified that CIP 5800.50.9720, Sidewalk & Drainage Repairs, has remaining fund balance of approximately $1.12 million and allocated the funds to be spent outside of the 93905 and 93906 zip codes; and
WHEREAS, Therefore, the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP No. 9720 is a multifunded citywide sidewalk repair project with the appropriated $6 million dollars of ARPA funds as intended by resolution 22250 and additional locations outside of the 93905 and 93906 zip codes to be paid for with the existing CIP 9720 fund balance (approximately $1.12 million) for sidewalk repairs and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that City Council approve a Resolution approving Plans and Specifications for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP 9720, and authorizing issuance of the Invitation to Bidders.; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer is authorized to extend, revise, or set the bid opening date through an addendum as necessary to meet the required bidding schedule; and WHEREAS, scanned copies of the Bid Proposals (“Bids”) for the above-mentioned work shall be submitted electronically via the PlanetBids website, until 2:00 PM, Pacific Standard Time on the 22nd day of November, 2022 at which time or thereafter said bids will be electronically opened, examined and read aloud via Zoom by City Clerk or his/her designee, who shall thereupon report the results of the bidding to the Council of Salinas at a regular meeting of said Council after opening of the bids; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP 9720 are hereby approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish notice to bidders inviting sealed proposals for said work for one time in a newspaper of general circulation as required under the law, which notice shall set forth the time and place, when and where bids Page | 2
shall be received, opened and read, and shall further refer to the aforesaid plans and specifications on file in the office of said City Clerk for the contents thereof. It is not required that any other matters be set forth in said published notice to bidders. No other notice shall be required.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 18th day of October, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
_______________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

ARCADIA WAY INGLEWOOD STREET

REDONDO WAY COMPTON WAY COVENTRY STREET

LENNY ST

LOUISE ST

NORTHRIDGE DR

NORTHRIDGE DR PIERCE ST

SWANER AVE

CRESCENT WAY

CRESCENT WAY
N. FIRST ST

ADAMS ST TULANE ST CHEROKEE DR CHEROKEE DR

CHEROKEE DR

SEMINOLE WAY

COMANCHE WAY

INCA WAY

CHEROKEE CT CHEROKEE CT APACHE CIR

SENECA PL

KIOWA CIR

AZTEC CIR PIMA CIR W CURTIS ST

N FOURTH ST

BOEING AVE DOUGLASS AVE

W ACACIA ST

DAVIS RD COLUMBIA AVE

W ACACIA ST

UNIVERSITY AVE

CAMDEN WAY

CHALON CIR

BEL AIR WAY

W ALISAL ST

W ACACIA ST

BRUCE AVE

MARION AVE

CRESPI WAY

JUNIPERO WAY IVERSON ST

CRESPI WAY

JUNIPERO WAY IVERSON ST PALMA DR

PALMA DR

SIERRA MADRE DR

ST ANDREW CT

ST ANDREW COURT

SAN VICENTE AVE

SAN VICENTE DR

SAN MIGUEL AVE

ALAMEDA AVE SAN JUAN DR

WILGART WAY

SAN FERNANDO DR

MEADOW DR MAGNOLIA DR JOHN ST JOHN ST ROOSEVELT ST

N MADEIRA AVE

N WOOD ST

N PEARL ST

E ALISAL ST E ALISAL ST E MARKET ST E MARKET ST RAGSDALE CT E ALISAL ST BARDIN RD

MARGARET ST

N SANBORN RD

KIMMEL ST

MACHADO WAY

GLENWOOD CT

BEECH ST

ATLANTIC ST

CARI CT

CAMILLE CT

GARNER AVE

N SANBORN RD

CARIBBEAN AVE

TAHITI PL

PACIFIC AVE

HAWAII PL

RIDER AVE

NOGAL DR NOGAL CIR

NOGAL DR AMARILLO WAY

CAOBA WAY AMARILLO WAY

RIDER AVE

LAS CASITAS DR

PINO WAY

ALAMO WAY

RANCHERO DR

LEXINGTON DR LEXINGTON DR LEXINGTON DR

HANCOCK ST PROVINCETOWN DR

WATERBURY WAY CANTERBURY ST LEXINGTON DR

PROVINCETOWN DR

DONNER WAY

EMERALD WAY

EMERALD DR

STRATFORD CT

EMERALD WAY

DONNER CIR HUMBOLDT DR TRUCKEE WAY

ARCADIA ST

PESCADERO AVE

PESCADERO DR

SAUSAL DR

EL SUR AVE

SAUCITO AVE

LOS COCHES AVE

BOCA WAY

GLENDORA WAY

NOGAL DR

CAOBA WAY
2ND ST

PLAZA PKWY

DEL MONTE AVE

MACHADO WAY

MEADOW DR MARIGOLD WAY

ROOSEVELT ST

OREGON ST

ROCHEX AVE

NORTHRIDGE WAY

CLEVELAND AVE

LOUISE CIR CLEVELAND AVE

SOUZA WAY

HOOVER ST

COMPTON WAY EMERALD WAY

ARCADIA WAY INGLEWOOD STREET INDEPENDENCE BLVD

NEWPORT CT

NEWPORT CT HANCOCK ST

W ACACIA ST

PALMA DR

SAN VICENTE AVE

LENNY ST LOUISE ST N MADEIRA AVE

COLERIDGE DR

PRIMAVERA ST

DICKENS DR

LOS OLIVOS DR

MIMBRERA WAY

MANZANO WAY

PACANA CIR

YUCATAN WAY NOGAL DR

RAGSDALE CT
4TH ST PEARL ALY 1457821222425910121314161718619 1 2 5 6 8 23 24 25 26 27 12 13 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 7 DESIGNED BY: CAD BY: PROJECT ENGINEER / MANAGER: CONSTRUCTION REVIEW: DATE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION: REVIEWED BY: DATE REVIEWED BY: DATE CITY OF SALINAS DATE REVISION APP. PROJ. NO(S) SHEET NO. FILE NO. OF File Path: J:\p\9720 - 3911.50.9720 - ARPA Sidewalk\dwg\Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project SHEETS.dwg REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER STA TE OF CA LIFORNIA ADRIANA ROBLES C IV I L NO. 69142 ADRIANA ROBLES, P.E., C.F.M. CITY ENGINEER ELISE C. RAMIREZ, P.E. SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DAVID T. JACOBS, P.E., L.S. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR HWJE CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT LOCATION MAP 9720 2 8244 46 06/30/2024 File Path: J:\p\9720 - 3911.50.9720 - ARPA Sidewalk\dwg\Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project SHEETS.dwg 28 28 2311152023 3 9 10 11 4 16 19 2627 City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-556, Version: 1
Public Art Program Update
No action. This report presented information to the City Council regarding the City of Salinas Public Art Program.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/12/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

PUBLIC ART COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2022
DEPARTMENT: LIBRARY & COMMUNITY SERVICES
FROM: KRISTAN LUNDQUIST, LCS DIRECTOR
BY: JOSE ARREOLA, COMMUNITY SAFETY ADMINISTRATOR
TITLE: PUBLIC ART UPDATE
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

This is an Administrative Report of an update on the City of Salinas Public Art Program. No further action is required.

RECOMMENDATION:

No action is required as this is an Administrative Report which provides an update on the City of Salinas Public Art Program.

BACKGROUND:

On May 16, 2017, the City Council adopted an Ordinance establishing a Public Art Program. The Ordinance created a Municipal Art Fund which is funded exclusively from contributions made by public construction projects: The Ordinance imposes upon the City the requirement to contribute an amount not to exceed on-half percent (0.5%) of the total project cost of each eligible capital improvement program project to a Municipal Art Fund. On February 11, 2020, the City Council approved the Public Art Master Plan.

The ordinance also established a Public Art Commission (PAC). The Library Community Services Department (LCS) staffs and supports the PAC. One of the PAC’s primary activities is the preparation of an Annual Public Arts Plan. Per Ordinance, the Public Arts Annual Plan will be submitted to the City Council annually no later than April 1. The Municipal Art Fund is a key tool for the PAC. The money for the fund comes from a fee on the value of any capital improvement program construction project funded by the General Tax, Measure G and E. The fee is 0.5% of qualified completed CIPS once a year. The money is deposited into the fund every June at the end of the fiscal year. There is a cap of $50,000 for any one project and a cap of $100,000 for spending in one year. The Current balance is $22,942.46. To date, all of the Page | 2
expended funds were used to fund the development and writing of the Public Arts Master Plan.

No funds were expended in 2021.

The PAC created an Annual Plan Committee that met three times from September through November 2021. The committee’s goal was to develop a public arts plan that identified funding recommendations to the Salinas City Council for use of the Public Art funds. The committee prepared a draft plan that was reviewed at a regular PAC meeting in November of 2021 and was approved by council on February 28, 2022. The committee had to develop ideas that could work with a relatively small fund balance and its slow rate of growth.

The Public Arts Commission Annual Plan for fiscal year 2023 adopted by Council authorized the use of up to $6,000. Of this amount $5,000 in funding would go to support new or existing cultural performing art events in Salinas by offering matching grants (in-kind match allowed) of up to $2,500. The goal of this funding is to help maintain and expand public art events to provide local artists in the City of Salinas an opportunity to engage with the public and publicly display their work. Up to $1,000 will be used for marketing the Public Art Commission meetings, Public Art Master Plan projects, vacant commissioner seats and the grant opportunity. The RFP has been developed for this grant program and has been reviewed by legal. We plan to start promoting the grant opportunity in October.

The Municipal Art Fund is not the only source of funding for Public Art. We have had some great new public art projects completed and planned using other funding sources. Each year the city administers a Neighborhood Beautification Grant totaling $56,000. In fiscal year 2022 the grant program funded 5 public projects including a new mural at the Breadbox Recreation Center. Also, in fiscal year 2022 LCS provided $15,000 in funding to put public art paintings on the newly installed trash corrals along Main Street. City staff developed the RFP and worked with a dozen artist to complete this project in the Summer of 2022. LCS has also partnered with the Community Development Department (CDD) on art installations as part of the Alisal Vibrancy Plan funded projects. This includes the placement of two already completed moveable murals. We have also partnered with CDD on a major Cal Trans grant they earned to put public art on three of our major free underpasses in the heart of Salinas. This includes working with our Public Art Commission on the RFP development and artist selection. Our state grant to revitalize Closter Park which will be completed December 2024 also includes multiple public art elements.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The Public Art Program in Salinas supports City Council Strategic Plan Goal: Investment Strategies/Risk Management
Page | 3
DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

LCS staff work with the City Attorney’s Office, Public Works and Community Development around any mural or public art events that are supported using the Municipal Art Fund, or any other city funds.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Funds are appropriated and available in the Municipal Art Fund.

ATTACHMENTS:

PowerPoint Presentation
Public Art
Program
UPDATE

SALINAS CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 18, 2022
Council Creates
Public Art Program
On May 16, 2017, the City Council adopted an
Ordinance establishing a Public Art Program.

On February 11, 2020, the City Council approved
the Public Art Master Plan.

Municipal Art
Fund
The money for the fund comes from a fee on the value
of any capital improvement construction
projects funded by the General Tax, Measure G and E.

The fee is 0.5% of qualified completed CIPS once a year.

The money is deposited into the fund every June at the
end of the fiscal year.

Current Balance is $22,942
Annual Plan Approval
On March 22 Council Authorized $6,000
in spending for FY '23 from the
Municipal Art Fund
Plan
Details
On March 22 City Council Authorized $6,000 in
spending for FY 22-23
$5,000 to support new or existing cultural
performing art events in Salinas by offering
matching grants (in-kind match allowed) of up to
$2,500.
$5,000 to support new or existing cultural
performing art events in Salinas by offering
matching grants (in-kind match allowed) of up to
$2,500.
$1,000 will be used for marketing the Public Art
Commission meetings, Public Art Master Plan
projects, vacant commissioner seats and the
grant opportunity.

Creatively
Funding Public
Art
Incorporating Public Art into
new development projects
The Neighborhood
Beautification Grant program
Use of department funds.

Trash Corral Art on Main St.

Next Annual Plan Due:

BY APRIL 1, 2023

SALINAS CITY COUNCIL
Thank You!
Questions?
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-521, Version: 1
Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan
No action. This report presents information to the City Council regarding the Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/12/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2022
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ANDREW EASTERLING, TRAFFIC ENGINEER
TITLE: DRAFT SALINAS SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS PLAN
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a presentation from Ecology Action staff on the Draft Salinas Safe Routes to Schools Plan and provide feedback. Comments and feedback can be incorporated into the plan before it is finalized. The Council will be asked to adopt the Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan as a strategic planning document later this year.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

At its October 22, 2019 meeting the City Council authorized an agreement (Attachment 1) with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) for the use of state grant funds for the development of a Salinas Safe Routes to Schools Plan. The Traffic and Transportation Commission received updates during the December 12, 2019, March 12, 2020 and April 12, 2022 meetings. The Draft Safe Routes to School Plan is now ready, and the City Council is asked to receive a presentation, review the plan and provide feedback. There is no recommendation for this item. The City Council will be given a time to review the plan and provide feedback. At a future Council meeting will be requested to adopt the Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan as a strategic planning document.

BACKGROUND:

City staff has been working with TAMC to develop a regional program for Safe Routes to School.

With voter approval of Measure X, TAMC has allocated Measure X funds toward improving safety for all who travel to schools. Measure X funds in the amount of $168,978 were leveraged to secure a $954,502 Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant focused on Salinas routes to schools.

Page | 2
Under the grant, TAMC partnered with the Monterey County Health Department, Ecology Action, and City staff to develop the Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan. The City Council approved a Resolution (No. 21724) to enter into an agreement with TAMC to develop the Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan (Attachment 1). The nearly four-year planning process is nearly complete and the Draft Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan is ready for public review. The Commission is asked to review the Plan and provide comments and feedback. At the October Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting, the Commission will be requested to make a recommendation to City Council.

The team has been in coordination with Caltrans and project partners since the Fall of 2019. The project team has conducted outreach for the forty-four (44) schools in and around Salinas.

Meetings and school safety audits have been conducted to help identify safety concerns as well as barriers to choosing active transportation to and from schools. As part of the project the team also facilitated two (2) pop-up demonstration events. The pop-up events temporarily installed some of the infrastructure recommendations from the Safe Routes to School Plan. These events were held for Sherwood Elementary School, on East Alisal Street and for Harden Middle School on McKinnon Street. The team has completed the Draft Safe Routes to School Plan and is asking the Commission to review the plan and provide feedback prior to recommending to the City Council for approval.

The City of Salinas Safe Routes to Schools Plan provides community-identified needs as well as recommendations for infrastructure projects and programs that support walking, bicycling, and carpooling to 45 schools in Salinas. The plan also identifies possible funding sources and implementation priorities. The recommendations in this plan aim to support a healthy community, improve affordable transportation options for low-income and vulnerable residents, and help the City achieve its Vision Zero Goal and the statewide goals to address climate change by reducing vehicle miles traveled.

Public input was the foundation of the process to create the Safe Routes to Schools Plan. The planning team developed an outreach plan and sought input from community members to understand school transportation needs and barriers and refine the draft recommendations. Parent and student surveys, presentations at parent meetings, and walking audits with school staff all contributed input on the barriers to walking and biking to schools in Salinas and the types of improvements that community members would like to see.
 Parent Outreach
o 140 presentations at virtual parent meetings
o 2,425 responses to online parent survey
o 1,341 responses to draft recommendations survey
o 35,000+ parents reached through Parentsquare or social media  Student Outreach
o 474 responses to student survey
o 17 elementary schools distributed traffic safety scavenger hunt activity to students  Temporary Installations
Page | 3
o 2 demonstration projects on East Alisal Street and McKinnon Street Based on parent survey data collected for this plan, 36% of students in Salinas walked or biked to school in 2019. The City of Salinas has set two goals for the future of Safe Routes to Schools, to be accomplished through implementation of the projects and programs in this plan:
 The majority of Salinas students walk, or bike to school  Elimination of all severe injury and fatality collisions for Salinas youth under 18 who are walking and bicycling
The Safe Routes to Schools Plan identifies improvements for each school and also corridors which include improvements which provide key routes to multiple Salinas schools. These streets may be good candidates for corridor-level improvements in the future to slow traffic speeds, improve intersections and crossings, and create a safe and comfortable environment for students to walk to school. Class I shared-use paths are completely separated from motor vehicles and offer the most comfortable environment for walking and biking.

The projects recommended in this plan were evaluated using five criteria that are aligned with the vision and goals of this plan and with common grant application criteria. The criteria includes: safety; access to key destinations; connectivity and low-stress network; equity; and community-identified need. This project scoring is meant to help decisionmakers and city staff prioritize projects and identify the most competitive projects for various grant funding opportunities. Equity scores are based on the Healthy Places Index map, which shows data on health indicators such as education, job opportunities, and clean air and water. Each project was assigned a number from 0 to 100 and the top 10 highest priority ranking projects are as shown in the table below.

Rank School Project
no.

Recommendation Street Cross
Street 1
Cross
Street 2
TOT
AL
1 Sherwood
Elementary/
El Sausal
Middle
SE013/
ESM001
Consider protected
pedestrian phases at
Alisal/Woods, Alisal/
Madeira, and Alisal/
Hebbron. Install highvisibility crosswalks
and protected bike
lanes as outlined in
Alisal Vibrancy Plan.

Remove on-street
parking in front of El
Sausal, and shift bus
drop-off from Towt to
Alisal.

E Alisal St Kern St Skyway
Blvd
100
Page | 4
2 Dr. Martin
Luther King
Jr.

Elementary/
Jesse G.

Sanchez
Elementary
MLKA0
08 Short term: Install
class II bike lanes
between Laurel and Del
Monte. Long term:

Widen sidewalk to
create multi-use path
from Laurel to Garner.

Install bike-conflict
markings at recreation
center entrance and exit
driveways. Install
raised median with
pedestrian refuge
islands.

Sanborn Rd Del
Monte
Ave
Laurel
Dr
90 3 Carr Lake
Community
Day/Mount
Toro High/
El Puente
CLCD0
05 Consolidate bike lanes
to one side of the road
for a two-way cycle
track or multi-use path.

Upgrade bike lanes on
Natividad between
Bernal and Boronda to
class IV separated
bikeways, and install
protected intersection
treatments at Bernal to
facilitate transition to
cycle track.

Sherwood
Dr
Bernal
St
Rossi St 86
4 Creekside
Elementary
CE016 Upgrade class II bike
lane to class IV.

Constitutio
n Blvd
Boronda
Rd
Indepen
dence
85 4 Henry F.

Kammann
HFK006 Install class IV
separated bikeways or
class I multi-use path.

W Laurel
Dr
Davis
Rd
N Main
St
85 4 Los Padres
Elementary
LPE002 Install raised median
for entire length of
John St with
landscaping and
lighting. Consider other
opportunities for traffic
calming.

John St Salinas
St
E Alisal
St
85 4 Sherwood
Elementary
SE012 Install curb extensions
and ramps along John
St.

John St S Wood
St
Sanborn
Rd
85 Page | 5
5 Fremont
Elementary
FE014 Install traffic calming,
sharrow marking, and
bike boulevard signage.

Towt St Market
St
Laurel
Dr
81 6 Santa Rita
Elementary
SRE002 Consider bike
boulevard with traffic
calming between Main
St and Van Buren Ave.

Consider street trees.

Consider sidewalk
widening on south side
to install multi-use
path.

E Bolivar
St
Main St Van
Buren
Ave
79 6 Virginia
Rocca
Barton
Elementary
VRBE0
20 Install traffic calming
(chicanes and removal
of parking at those
locations), sharrow
markings, and bike
route signage.

Del Monte
Ave
Rider
Ave
William
s Rd
79 The final plan and all of the outreach and recommendations can be found on the project’s website at: https://saferoutesmonterey.org/planning-salinas/. The website will be accepting comments until October 23rd. City Council can choose to submit comments through the website or directly to staff before the final plan is brought to Council for adoption.

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). The Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan is a strategic planning document. The implementation of any of the Plan recommendations will require CEQA consideration.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The Safe Routes to School Plan supports Council’s goals of “Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability”, “Youth and Senior”, and “Public Safety” by developing planned infrastructure recommendations to support safe walking and biking to Salinas Schools.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Public Works and Community Development staff are working with regional partners including Monterey County Health Department, School Districts and TAMC.

Page | 6
FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no impact to the General Fund. TAMC leveraged Measure X funds in the amount of $168,978 to secure a $954,502 Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant focused on Salinas routes to schools. TAMC was the project lead with the City participating as a co-applicant for the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant. The City’s portion of the budget for this grant funded project was $72,116. At the time this report is being the City has only claimed $28,699.38 and the City is anticipated to finish under budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Resolution 21724
Attachment 2: Draft Safe Routes to School Plan
Attachment 3: Presentation
RESOLUTION NO. 21724 (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TRANSPORTATION

AGENCY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SALINAS

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Salinas General Plan Circulation Element has policies supporting safe routes to school; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas continues to work on infrastructure improvements that support safe travels to schools, including the upcoming Bardin Road Project and Alvin Drive Safe Routes to School Project; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) secured a $954,502 State Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant to develop a Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan; and
WHEREAS, said grant provides funding ($72,116) for City staff’s efforts in the development of the Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council authorizes the Mayor to enter into an agreement with TAMC for the use of said funds.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council authorizes the allocation of $72,116 into the City Capital Improvement Program for staff to begin reimbursable work with TAMC.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 22nd day of October 2019 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: Barrera, Cromeenes, Davis, De La Rosa and Mayor Gunter NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember McShane and Villegas
ABSTAIN: None
APPROVED:
_________________
Joe Gunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21961935-D452-42A6-A961-D41DCC1E7279

AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SALINAS
AND

THE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY

SALINAS SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN
This is an agreement between the City of Salinas, (hereafter “CITY), and the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, (hereafter “TAMC”).

PURPOSE
The purpose of this agreement is to set forth the roles and responsibilities of CITY and TAMC with respect to the implementation of the “Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan” (hereinafter the “PROJECT”).

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program was created to support the California Department of Transportation’s (“Caltrans”) mission to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability;
WHEREAS, the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program is funded through the State Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account and State Highway Account; WHEREAS, TAMC has Master Fund agreements with Caltrans to receive federal and state funds and is responsible for regional transportation planning and implementation; WHEREAS, Monterey County Health Department (“MCHD”), TAMC, Ecology Action, and City of Salinas (“CITY”) partnered to develop an application to receive Transportation Planning Grant funds for the PROJECT for the grant period YEAR; WHEREAS, TAMC applied as the applicant and MCHD, Ecology Action and City of Salinas applied as sub-applicants for the grant;
WHEREAS, the PROJECT consists of a systematic and comprehensive assessment and analysis of the greatest barriers to increased school-based active transportation and access to public transit and carpooling, and identification of potential improvements to infrastructure and programming, as further described in the Scope of Work and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein as “Exhibit A”.

WHEREAS, the PROJECT was awarded $954,502 in Transportation Planning Grant Program funds and TAMC is providing $168,978 in matching funds; WHEREAS, as described herein and in Exhibit A, TAMC, acting as the Lead Agency, will be responsible for overseeing the plan’s delivery, coordinating partnership involvement, participating in public outreach (including involvement of the TAMC Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Committee and the TAMC Measure X Oversight DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 Committee), providing project information via an online Safe Routes to School resource hub, developing partnerships and collecting information needed to start a school carpool pilot, identifying potential funding sources for implementation, and administering the grant for the PROJECT;
WHEREAS, as described herein and in Exhibit A, EA, acting as the Implementing Agency, will lead the development of the plan, assist with organizing the public outreach and data collection process, and hire and manage a technical consultant for the project using a competitive Request for Proposal process; WHEREAS, as described herein and in Exhibit A, MCHD, acting as a Partnering Agency, will lead the public engagement process with a special focus on disadvantaged communities in the project area. They will reach out to key stakeholders including but not limited to parents, schools, school districts, elected officials, advocacy groups and health providers to help identify specific health and safety needs within the community as well as opportunities for safe routes to school partnerships. Due to the high percentage of Spanish speakers in the community, meetings will be held in Spanish with English translation or accommodations will be made for non-English speakers. The Health Department will provide bilingual staff at all community engagement meetings and events and translation services and equipment as needed;
WHEREAS, as described herein and in Exhibit A, CITY, acting as a Partnering Agency will participate in public engagement activities (including engagement with the City’s Traffic Commission) and walking audits, evaluate project recommendations to ensure consistency with City policy and planning documents, develop recommendations for policy changes in line with the Plan’s objectives, review and approve the list of recommendations and draft plan and adopt the final planning document;
WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the speedy implementation of the Project, TAMC is entering into separate agreements with EA, MCHD and CITY, each of which contains the same Scope of Work and Schedule, and basic description of duties under the PROJECT, and the same Budget. (hereinafter, “Agreement”), in order that any delays in processing approvals by one party shall not operate to impede another party or frustrate the PROJECT.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. This agreement is effective upon September 25, 2019 and shall remain in effect until June 30, 2022 or until the completion of the PROJECT under the terms of the Transportation Planning Grant Program award, whichever occurs last.

Provided, however, that no actions or activities undertaken by a party shall be eligible for reimbursement under the grant and matching funds until such party has formally approved and executed an Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1

2. Consistent with the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A, TAMC shall act as the Lead Agency, and in that role will:
a. Obtain agreements from City of Salinas, MCHD and Ecology Action committing them to the timely fulfillment of work identified in the PROJECT application;
b. Request reimbursement from Caltrans, and include a copy of this Agreement between MCHD and the TAMC in the initial request; c. Develop and maintain an online resource for the project; d. Request PROJECT extensions to Caltrans if needed;
e. Oversee procurement procedures and review contracts to ensure federal and state requirements are met including Caltrans travel reimbursement rates;
f. Oversee PROJECT delivery to ensure proper compliance with state, federal and local requirements such as the National Environmental Policy Act, California Environmental Quality Act, Title 23 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual, Master Agreement with Caltrans and Transportation Planning Grant Program Guidelines;
g. Collect information needed to start a school carpool pilot; h. Develop and submit semi-annual and final delivery reports in accordance with the Program Guidelines;
i. Submit invoices to Caltrans in accordance with Chapter 5 (Accounting/Invoices) of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual; and j. Take such other actions as may be necessary to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement.

TAMC shall be reimbursed for its efforts from available PROJECT funds through funding allocations in approved amounts not to exceed Eighty-Four Thousand One Hundred Fourteen Dollars ($84,114).

3. Consistent with the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A, Ecology Action shall act as the Implementing Agency, and in that role will:
a. Develop a schedule to implement the PROJECT;
b. Facilitate regular partner meetings with TAMC, MCHD, Ecology Action, City of Salinas, and other organizations and stakeholders; c. Facilitate communications between schools and partner agencies, announcements, develop agendas and meeting minutes;
d. Hire a consultant in accordance with TAMC’s procurement procedures and manage contract in an amount not to exceed $97,200 for consultant to lead a minimum of X public meetings, lead at least X school audits, propose engineering solutions and review final plan draft and take such other actions as may be required, as agreed by TAMC and EA. e. Collect and analyze biking and walking data;
f. Lead community engagement efforts;
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 g. Develop draft and final planning documents including profiles for each school, a project rating system, infrastructure and non-infrastructure recommendations and maps;
h. Submit progress reports and invoices to TAMC; and
i. Take such other actions as may be necessary to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement.

Ecology Action shall be reimbursed for its efforts from available PROJECT funds through funding allocations submitted by TAMC in approved amounts not to exceed Six-Hundred Ninety Thousand Fifty Dollars ($690,050).

4. Consistent with the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A, the County of Monterey through MCHD shall act as a Partnering Agency for the PROJECT, and in that role will:
a. Participate in monthly coordination meetings;
b. Participate in school walking audits and assist Spanish-speakers; c. Assist the Implementing Agency in contacting schools and community members;
d. Facilitate communications with community advocacy groups e. Assist in developing a community engagement strategy that will effectively reach disadvantaged populations in the study area; f. Assist in developing outreach materials;
g. Engage Spanish-speakers at community workshops and meetings; h. Review and comment on the draft Plan; and
i. Take such other actions as may be necessary to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement.

County/MCHD shall be reimbursed for its efforts from available PROJECT funds through funding allocations submitted by TAMC in approved amounts not to exceed One-Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($180,000).

5. Consistent with the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A, the CITY shall act as a Partnering Agency for the PROJECT, and in that role will:
a. Attend and participate in monthly coordination meetings; b. Participate in community meetings and walking audits; c. Review and evaluate project recommendations;
d. Develop recommendations for policy changes consistent with the Plan’s objectives;
e. Assist in scheduling presentations to City Committees, Commissions and the City Council;
f. Review and comment on the draft Plan;
g. Assist in getting the Plan considered and adopted by the Salinas City Council;
h. Take such other actions as may be necessary to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 CITY shall be reimbursed for its efforts from available PROJECT funds through funding allocations submitted by TAMC in approved amounts not to exceed Seventy-Two Thousand One-Hundred Sixteen Dollars ($72,116).

6. Reimbursement for expenditures for PROJECT activities will be made on the following basis:
a. Not later than July 8 2019, October 8, 2019, January 8, 2019, April 8, 2019 and the 8
th of every third month following in each year thereafter; MCHD shall submit progress reports for the previous quarter to TAMC for submission to Caltrans following the standard Overall Work Program format. These quarters are specified: First quarter – July through September, Second quarter – October through December, Third quarter – January through March, and Fourth quarter – April through June b. In addition to the quarterly progress reports, MCHD will submit an invoice and appropriate documentation to support a request for reimbursement for MCHD efforts to TAMC for submission as a request for funding allocation, consistent with the budget attached hereto as Exhibit B. Invoices shall be formatted in accordance with Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
c. MCHD and TAMC agree that:
i. Contract cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulation System, chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the eligibility of individual PROJECT cost items; and
ii. Those parties shall comply with federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 1201, Uniform System of Accounts.
iii. Every sub-recipient receiving PROJECT funds as a contractor or sub-contractor under this AGREEMENT shall comply with
Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFT, Part 1201, Uniform System of Accounts, including using only Caltrans approved travel reimbursement rates.

7. Mutual Indemnification of Public Agencies:

Neither TAMC, the County, the CITY (hereinafter, “Public Agency”), nor their respective governing bodies, elected officials, any officer, consultant, agent, or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by any other Public Agency in connection with any work or action taken with respect to the Agreement.

8. Limited Indemnification of Other Parties. Each Public Agency shall indemnify EA only to the extent that such liabilities, loss, injury or damages are caused in part by the sole negligence, active negligence, or willful misconduct of the respective public agency, its officers, agents, and employees.

9. Insurance.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 a. Each Public Agency party (TAMC, MCHD, CITY) shall provide proof of insurance or self-insured retention in the amounts required for EA, as described below.
b. Without limiting EA’s duty to indemnify as set forth in the Agreement between EA and TAMC, EA shall maintain, at no additional cost to TAMC, throughout the term of this Agreement a policy or policies of insurance with the following coverage and minimum limits of liability (check if applicable):
i. Commercial general liability insurance, including but not limited to premises, personal injury, products, and completed operations, with a combined single limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence.
ii. Professional liability insurance in the amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) in the aggregate, to cover liability for malpractice or errors or omissions made in the course of rendering professional services. If professional liability insurance is written on a “claims made” basis rather than an “occurrence” basis, Consultant shall, upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement, obtain extended reporting coverage (“tail coverage”) with the same liability limits. Any such tail coverage shall continue for at least three years following the surviving term of Consultant’s obligation to defend, indemnify and hold harmless TAMC as set for in Paragraph 6.
iii. Comprehensive automobile insurance covering all motor vehicles, including owned, leased, hired and non-owned vehicles used in providing services under this Agreement, with a combined single limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence.
c. All insurance required under this Agreement shall be with a company acceptable to TAMC and authorized by law to transact insurance business in the State of California. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, all such insurance shall be written on an occurrence basis; or, if any policy cannot be written on an occurrence basis, such policy shall continue in effect for a period of two years following the date of the party’s completion of performance hereunder.
d. Each policy of insurance required under this Agreement shall provide that TAMC shall be given written notice at least thirty days in advance of any change, cancellation or non-renewal thereof. Each policy shall provide identical coverage for each subcontractor performing work under this Agreement, or be accompanied by a certificate of insurance for each subcontractor showing identical insurance coverage.
e. Commercial general liability and automobile liability policies shall provide an endorsement naming TAMC, its officers, agents, and employees, as additional insureds and shall further provide that such insurance is primary to any insurance or self-insurance maintained by DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 TAMC, and that no insurance of any additional insured shall be called upon to contribute to a loss covered by the party’s insurance. f. TAMC shall not be responsible for any premiums or assessments on any insurance policy required by this Agreement.

10. This Agreement may be updated or amended only by written agreement of both parties, after consultation with other parties to the PROJECT.

11. Governing Laws: This Agreement shall be construed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California, and the parties hereby agree that the County of Monterey shall be the proper venue for any dispute arising hereunder.

12. Construction of Agreement: The parties agree that each party has fully participated in the review and revision of this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any exhibit or amendment. To that end, it is understood and agreed that this Agreement has been arrived at through negotiation, and that neither party is to be deemed the party which prepared this Agreement within the meaning of Civil Code Section 1654. Section and paragraph headings appearing herein are for convenience only and shall not be sued to interpret the terms of this Agreement.

13. Waiver: Any waiver of any term or condition hereof must be in writing. No such waiver shall be construed as a waiver of any other term or condition herein.

14. Successors and Assigns: This Agreement is not assignable without the formal written consent of the other party.

15. Termination: Because this Agreement allocates responsibilities with respect to a grant awarded by the State of California, and because failure to comply with the terms of the grant may result in substantial financial or other damage to one or both party, neither party may terminate this Agreement prior to the completion of the PROJECT without the consent of the other.

16. Time is of the Essence: The parties mutually acknowledge and agree that time is of the essence with respect to every provision hereof in which time is an element, as described in the Schedule of Performance, attached as Exhibit C. No extension of time for performance of any obligation or act shall be deemed an extension of time for performance or any other obligation or act, nor shall any such extension create a precedent for any further or future extension.

17. Contract Administrators: CITY’s designated principal responsible for administering CITY’s work under this Agreement shall be David Jacobs, Public Works Director; TAMC’s designated administrator of this Agreement shall be Debra L. Hale, Executive Director. TAMC’s Project Manager under this Agreement shall be Ariana Green, Associate Transportation Planner.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1

18. Notices: Notices required under this Agreement shall be delivered personally or by electronic facsimile, or by first class or certified mail with postage prepaid.

Notice shall be deemed effective upon personal delivery or facsimile transmission, or on the third day after deposit with the U.S. Postal Service.

Consultant shall give TAMC prompt notice of any change of address. Unless otherwise changed according to these notice provisions, notices shall be addressed as follows:

To TAMC: Debra L. Hale To ECOLOGY ACTION: Jim Murphy
55 B Plaza Circle 877 Cedar Street, Suite 240
Salinas, CA 93901 Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Tel: 831-775-0903 Tel: 831-515-1344
Fax: 831-775-0897 Fax: N/A
To CITY: To MCHD:

19. Entire Agreement. This document, including all Exhibits hereto, as well as the Transportation Planning Grant application and grant award, and the Agreements entered into with EA and MCHD, constitute the entire agreement between and among the parties, and supersedes any and all prior written or oral negotiations and representations between the parties concerning all matters relating to the subject of this Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 IN WITNESS WHEREAS the parties hereto have signed this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers, duly authorized:

City of Salinas Transportation Agency for Monterey
County
__________________________ __________________________
Mayor Executive Director
__________________________ __________________________
Date Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ __________________________
City Attorney Attorney for Transportation Agency for
Monterey County
__________________________ __________________________
Date Date
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 10/30/2019 | 10:20 AM PDT
10/30/2019 | 11:53 AM PDT
11/3/2019 | 11:54 AM PST
11/4/2019 | 8:37 AM PST
SCOPE OF WORK: Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan
INTRODUCTION:

Salinas has a serious traffic safety problem that disproportionally affects children. Nearly one third of Salinas residents are under the age of 18, and sadly they represent over one third of collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians. Over the past 10 years 337 children have been hit and injured while walking or biking and 3 children have been killed. This traffic safety issue is widespread, growing, and apparent in every school district across the City. The Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan is proposed in response to requests from the community to address the serious and growing traffic safety problems citywide.

This Plan will examine conditions at 44 schools in four districts serving a total of 37,015 students.

It will provide the City of Salinas with a comprehensive approach and tools to improve unsafe conditions around schools and reduce barriers to walking, biking, taking the bus and carpooling to school. This plan will provide the basis for future investments in infrastructure by the local Measure X Safe Routes to Schools program, the SB 1 local road rehabilitation program, and the infrastructure portion of the Active Transportation Program. Founded on a public partnership, this plan will involve active participation by parents, school administrators, neighbors, City staff and officials, County Public Health, community advocacy groups and students from forty-four K12 schools. This proposed plan will be similar to the Santa Cruz City Schools Complete Streets Master Plan (funded by Caltrans in 2013) which resulted in a $1.4M ATP Cycle 2 infrastructure grant. It will also be modeled after the Seaside & Marina Safe Routes to School Plan that is currently underway and was funded by a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant and local sales tax Measure X.

The City of Salinas has a population of 157,596. A largely Spanish-speaking community, 76% of residents are Latino, 14% are white, 6% Asian, 2% African American, 1% American Indian and 1% Other. Salinas is the largest city in the Monterey Bay region, the county seat and is the commercial and residential hub of the Salinas Valley.

According to the California State Ed Data site 76% of Salinas City public school students qualify for Free and Reduced Meals, (a sign of low income status) and 50% of students are English language learners.

Many Salinas school children will be the first in their family to receive a high school education, and have no choice other than to walk or bike to and from school. To achieve higher education, it is vital that students have safe places to walk and bike so they can attend school consistently and unharmed.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 Childhood obesity is also of great concern in Salinas. On average, 50% - 60% of 5th graders in Salinas are overweight or obese. This project will identify opportunities to encourage healthier travel and daily exercise such as walking, biking, skateboarding and scootering to school.

This study will be an important step towards creating healthy and safe pathways for youth by evaluating how the streets in Salinas can better accommodate the needs of all users.

PROJECT DETAILS & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The plan will provide a systematic and comprehensive assessment and analysis of the greatest barriers to increased school-based active transportation and access to public transit and carpooling. The project will provide decision makers with a publicly vetted and prioritized project list that reflects participation from a broad range of stakeholders and public participants to facilitate improvements going forward. Community input will be solicited during every step of the project. The public will be invited to participate in community meetings, focus groups, walking/biking audits, submit comments at public meetings, at the school-site display boards, through an online portal, as well as participate in parent surveys. All communication will be graphic-heavy and minimize text to reach parents of all reading levels. All text will be provided in English and Spanish.

RESPONSIBLE PARTIES:

The Transportation Agency for Monterey County will be responsible for overseeing the plan’s delivery, coordinating partnership involvement, participating in public outreach (including involvement of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Committee and the Measure X Oversight Committee), providing project information via an online Safe Routes to School resource hub, developing partnerships and collecting information needed to start a school carpool pilot, identifying potential funding sources for implementation, and administering the grant.

Ecology Action (Sub-Applicant) will lead the development of the plan, assist with organizing the public outreach and data collection process, and hire and manage a technical consultant for the project using a competitive Request for Proposal process.

The Monterey County Health Department (Sub-Applicant) will lead the public engagement process with a special focus on disadvantaged communities in the project area. They will reach out to key stakeholders including but not limited to parents, schools, school districts, elected officials, advocacy groups and health providers to help identify specific health and safety needs within the community as well as opportunities for safe routes to school partnerships. Due to the high percentage of Spanish speakers in the community, meetings will be held in Spanish with English translation or accommodations will be made for non-English speakers. The Health Department will provide bilingual staff at all community engagement meetings and events and translation services and equipment as needed.

The City of Salinas (Sub-Applicant) staff will participate in public engagement activities (including engagement with the City’s Traffic Commission) and walking audits, evaluate project recommendations to ensure consistency with City policy and planning documents, develop recommendations for policy changes in line with the Plan’s objectives, review and approve the list of recommendations and draft plan and adopt the final planning document.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 OVERALL PROJECT OBJECTIVES:
• Identify greatest barriers for active trips to school (walk, bike, skateboard & scooter). • Identify improvements that would increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety. • Identify low cost, non-infrastructure solutions to increase school-based active trips. • Identify barriers to public transit and carpooling to schools. • Identify low cost and community generated non-infrastructure solutions to traffic congestion at schools.
• Produce a plan to guide future infrastructure improvements that reduce school-based traffic congestion and increase safe, active and sustainable transportation to and from school.
• This project will directly support the Sustainability, Mobility, Safety, Health and Social Equity goals of this grant program.

STUDY TASKS

1. Project Initiation
Task 1.1 Project Kick-Off Meeting
 The City of Salinas Public Works, TAMC, Monterey County Health Department (MCHD) and Ecology Action will hold a kick-off meeting with Caltrans staff to discuss grant procedures and project expectations including invoicing, quarterly reporting, and all other relevant project information. Meeting summary will be documented.  Responsible Parties: City of Salinas, TAMC, Monterey County Health Department (MCHD), and Ecology Action (EA).

Task 1.2 RFP for Consultant Services
 Complete a competitive Request for Proposals process for selection of a technical consultant familiar with transportation planning at schools and with innovative ideas for multimodal improvements around schools using proper procurement procedures.  Responsible Parties: Ecology Action and TAMC
Task 1.3 Contact School Sites
 Contact all school sites with projected timeline for their individual involvement and participation levels.
 Responsible Party: Ecology Action
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 Task 1.4 Staff Coordination
 Monthly team meetings with project partners to ensure good communication on upcoming tasks, project progress, schedule and budget. Caltrans staff will be invited to participate in project team meetings.
 Responsible Parties: Ecology Action, TAMC, MCHD, City of Salinas Task Deliverable

1.1 Meeting Notes

1.2 Consultant Contract

1.3 Log of Contacts

1.4 Log of Meetings

2. Community Engagement
Task 2.1 Devise Engagement Strategy
 Devise an engagement strategy describing the process and opportunities for public input from the school community as well as surrounding neighborhoods.  Responsible Parties: Monterey County Health Department, City of Salinas, TAMC and Ecology Action
Task 2.2 Create collateral
 Create poster to promote meetings
 Create/maintain website to promote planning process
 Create sign-in sheets for meetings
 Create sign-up sheets for upcoming audits
 Create sign-in sheets for audits
 Responsible Party: Ecology Action
Task 2.3 Conduct Outreach
 Conduct intentional bilingual outreach to engage the community and stakeholders throughout the planning process.
 Attend school parent group meetings, work through community-based organizations and existing groups to invite participants
 Work with the City of Salinas to coordinate outreach opportunities with other City planning efforts
 Contact key stakeholders such as the School District, Student Leadership, Migrant Education Services and Leadership and Civic Engagement Academy (enLACE) and develop a communications infrastructure to promote the process.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1  The major focus is to generate good participation at 6-8 public meetings, site audits at 44 schools and receive input through other provided methods.

Promotion methods include:
 social media, including Facebook posts
 school newsletters
 PTA announcements
 press releases
 distribution of flier
 promotion through grassroots channels
 Back to School nights
 Community Based Organization partnerships
 In-person meetings
 All materials will be posted in Spanish and English, plus visuals to accommodate low literacy individuals
 Responsible Party: MCHD
Task 2.4 Online Community Engagement
 Create bilingual website with project information, updates, and opportunities for the public to post comments regarding active transportation conditions around school sites.

All meetings and audits will be posted on the site. Site to be promoted at all schools.  Target parents and community members who are unable to attend in-person presentations by providing an interactive online forum.  Responsible Party: Ecology Action
Task 2.5 Map Student Residence Data and Create Individual School Site Maps  Collect student residence information from the four named school districts. Plot residence information on map/overlay of each school site showing attendance boundaries, school locations and walking and biking distance radii to better inform walking audits.
 Create two discreet maps for each of the 44 school sites. Print out sufficient copies for all audits and public meetings.
 Responsible Parties: Ecology Action and TAMC
Task 2.6 Create On-Site Public Comment Boards
 Create an interactive board with school-specific map to be placed in each school office to solicit public comments. Maps will be displayed at every school site for an additional method to collect public comment.
 Responsible Parties: Ecology Action, MCHD and TAMC
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 Task 2.7 Community Workshops
 Convene 6-8 public meetings bringing school administrators, parents, students, planners, interested school community members and neighbors together to describe upcoming process and solicit input and volunteers to act as stakeholders for each school and to participate in audits at site.
 Community workshops shall be conducted in the appropriate language given community neighborhood needs, with interpreters available as needed. Meetings will offer dual language capacity including some presentations in Spanish with English translation.  Provide food and childcare at all meetings (paid for with local funds separate from the grant or matching funds).
 Responsible Parties: City of Salinas, TAMC, MCHD, Ecology Action and Consultant Task Deliverable

2.1 List of stakeholders, meetings

2.2 Sample Collateral

2.3 Screenshot of interface

2.4 Screenshot and comments from online forum

2.5 Residence Maps

2.6 Interactive Board Display

2.7 Public meeting notes & Volunteer list

3. Background Information & Data Collection
Task 3.1 Collect & Review Background Information
 Collect and review policy, planning and engineering documents relevant to safe routes to school to provide understanding of planned infrastructure improvement projects, policy barriers and opportunities and upcoming infrastructure projects. The background review will help ensure consistency with existing City planning documents.  Responsible Party: TAMC, Ecology Action and City of Salinas Task 3.2 Conduct Parent Surveys
 Conduct English/Spanish National Safe Routes to School parent surveys at each school site before audit is scheduled. Surveys collect parent attitudes regarding student transportation and perceived barriers to walking/biking.  Responsible Party: Ecology Action, MCHD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 Task 3.3 Conduct Student Travel Mode Surveys
 Conduct National Safe Routes to School student travel mode surveys at each school for 2- day period.
 Responsible Party: Ecology Action
Task 3.4 Crash Data Collection and Analysis for Schools  Gather and analyze crash data for each site from the UC Berkeley TIMS maps as well as SWITRS. Additionally, solicit non-reported incidents at each site that would not appear in SWITRS data sets from public meetings, comments and other sources.  Responsible Party: TAMC and Ecology Action
Task Deliverable

3.1 Collect & Review Background Information

3.2 Survey Results

3.3 Mode Results

3.4 Crash Data & Data Analysis

4. School Audits
Task 4.1 Solicit Audit Participants
 Reach out through advocacy groups, school community, neighborhood outreach, online portal, and public meetings to solicit variety of stakeholders to participate in an audit at the 44 school sites (Task 2.7). Participants will vary depending on site but may include school administrators, parents, students, community members, and other stakeholders.  Responsible Parties: Ecology Action, Monterey County Health Department Task 4.2 Online Interactive Map and Forum
 Encourage stakeholders who are unable to attend the walking audits to provide input through the interactive online map and forum provided on the project website.  Responsible Parties: TAMC and Ecology Action
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 Task 4.3 Conduct School Audits
 Conduct walking audit of areas surrounding schools. Survey popular routes to school and drop-off/pick-up areas when students are arriving on campus. Survey bike parking and other existing support facilities. Assess non-infrastructure programing. Photograph problem areas.
 Responsible Parties: City of Salinas, TAMC, Monterey County Health Department, Ecology Action and Consultant (on some audits but not all)
Task 4.4 Consolidate Audit Findings
 Consolidate findings from the audits, public forums and online sources.  Responsible Party: Ecology Action
Task 4.5 Make Non-Infrastructure Recommendations
 Consider non-infrastructure education and encouragement programming for school site based on stakeholder feedback.
 Develop a draft program list.
 Responsible Parties: Ecology Action, MCHD, City of Salinas, School Reps and TAMC, Consultant
Task 4.6 Make Infrastructure Recommendations
 Compile a list of Infrastructure and Non-Infrastructure recommendations for each school site. Develop a draft project list.
 Responsible Party: Consultant
Task 4.7 Internal Review Recommendations List
 Have all partner agencies review and revise recommendations before including in presentations.
 Responsible Party: Ecology Action, Consultant, City of Salinas, TAMC and MCHD Task 4.8 Create Presentation
 Create a Powerpoint presentation to share findings with decision-making bodies and poster boards depicting draft recommended improvements to be displayed at each school and at community events
 Responsible Party: Ecology Action, MCHD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 Task 4.9 Present findings to Stakeholders
 Present draft recommendations to decision-making bodies (school boards, Salinas Traffic and Transportation Commission, Salinas Planning Commission, Salinas City Council and TAMC Board) and solicit input.
 Present recommendations on poster boards and solicit feedback from the community through community gatherings and pop-up events, online portal, and school newsletter.  Responsible Party: City of Salinas, TAMC, Monterey County Health Department and Ecology Action
Task 4.10 Revise Draft Recommendation List
 Revise Draft Recommendation List based on stakeholder input.  Responsible Party: Ecology Action
Task Deliverable

4.1 Participant List

4.2 Summary map and comments from the online forum

4.3 Notes and photos from Audit

4.4 Barrier List for Each School

4.5 Draft Non-Infrastructure Recommendations List

4.6 Draft Infrastructure Recommendations List

4.7 Compiled Recommendations List

4.8 Poster Board Displays & Powerpoint presentation

4.9 Photos of displays; meeting minutes and agendas

4.10 Revise Draft Recommendation List

5. Pop-Up Infrastructure Demonstrations
Task 5.1 Select Demonstration Sites
 Identify 2-4 locations for pop-up demonstration events. Demonstration locations will be chosen based on geographic/school district distribution, potential public participation, opportunities to demonstrate infrastructure that may be unfamiliar to public, and sites that could be converted to permanent installations.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1  Responsible Party: City of Salinas, TAMC, Monterey County Health Department and Ecology Action
Task 5.2 Designs and Permits for Demonstration
 Develop drawings for pop-up demonstration infrastructure including proposed locations of temporary striping, hardscape items such as planter boxes, and signage. Develop detailed materials list/budget. Team will work with local agency staff on any necessary permitting (e.g. encroachment permit) including expected traffic control needs.  Develop a detailed sign plan, illustrating set-up of demonstration infrastructure, and educational signage indicating changed traffic or parking conditions as part of the demonstration.
 Develop concept drawings and visual displays to help explain the project to the community the during the pop-up event.
 Responsible Party: TAMC, Ecology Action, Consultant and City of Salinas, Task 5.3 Community Notification & Engagement
 Coordinate with school community to establish pop-up dates and invite participation.  Recruit volunteers to help install the pop-up demonstrations.  Develop and distribute flyers and social media blasts (in English and Spanish) to notify and inform businesses, schools, and the greater community of upcoming pop-up demonstrations.
 Responsible Parties: Ecology Action, TAMC and MCHD
Task 5.4 Install and Implement Demonstrations
 Event implementation will include event preparation, set-up and demonstration treatment installation prior to the event going live. Outreach to businesses or residents adjacent to the demonstration site; setup may need to occur the day prior to the event depending on scope.
 Once the demonstration is active, provide staff and volunteer management, education of public participants, documentation and evaluation activities (see next task), and fielding inquiries from media and public.
 Educate the public and get feedback about the infrastructure pop-up via a project information center with project information and maps, and opportunities for feedback.  Responsible Parties: Ecology Action, TAMC and MCHD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 Task 5.5 Demonstration Evaluation
 Documentation and evaluation plan will include a survey form and survey implementation actions, overall master plan feedback opportunities (Maps and other information at the pop-up tent), photography and a list of metrics to be evaluated after the demonstration.  Responsible Party: Ecology Action
Task Deliverable

5.1 Maps of demonstration site locations

5.2 Drawings, materials list and cost, permits and sign plan

5.3 Informational flyers, social media posts and volunteer recruitment list.

5.4 Pictures of pop-up demonstrations, notes, and
community surveys.

5.5 Summary of pop-up demonstration events

6. Plan Development
Task 6.1 Develop Profile for each School
 Create a succinct profile for each school site detailing current conditions (portrait of student body, student residence maps and relevant school policies and programs).

Describe current challenges and opportunities at individual sites and recommend infrastructure and non-infrastructure solutions.
 Review identified infrastructure needs and develop list of potential infrastructure solutions will be developed for each school.
 Include all data collected for each site (site audit, parent surveys, mode surveys, public comments, crash data and community input).
 School Profiles will be written in Spanish and English.  Responsible Parties: Ecology Action; review by City of Salinas, TAMC, MCHD Task 6.2 Develop Project Rating System
 Develop rating mechanism using criteria consistent with the California Active Transportation Program, Regional Transportation Plan and City General Plan to identify high priority projects that will help meet local, regional and state health and safety goals.  Responsible Parties: Ecology Action and Consultant
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 Task 6.3 Develop Plan Implementation Strategy
 Create a phased implementation strategy that includes a timeline, planning-level cost estimates and potential funding sources.
 Include a strategy to pilot a school carpool program in Salinas  Responsible Party: Ecology Action, Consultant, City of Salinas, TAMC and MCHD Task 6.4 Create Infrastructure Recommendation Maps
 Create maps for each school showing recommended sites for infrastructure improvements, and proposed phasing.
 Responsible Party: Ecology Action
Task 6.5 Develop & Review Administrative Draft Plan
 Compile all the data and recommendations prepared for the plan (including school profiles, background data, community engagement strategy and outcomes, maps, concept drawings, infrastructure and non-infrastructure recommendations, ratings matrix and implementation strategy) into a single plan, including a short Executive Summary.  Circulate to the administrative draft to TAMC, MCHD, School District, and City staff for review and comment.
 Responsible Party: Ecology Action, Consultant, TAMC, MCHD and City of Salinas Task 6.6 Draft Plan
 Revise Administrative Draft Plan incorporating comments from TAMC, MCHD, School District and City.
 Prepare an online version of the draft plan.
 Responsible Party: Ecology Action and/or Consultant
Task 6.7 Draft Plan Review
 Post the Draft Plan online and distribute copies to community centers, public libraries, schools, City of Salinas for public review and input.
 Solicit comments on the Draft Plan from the following:
o Salinas Traffic and Transportation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council
o the four affected school boards
o TAMC Board
o Members of the public, including parents
 Responsible Party: Ecology Action, MCHD, City of Salinas, and TAMC DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1 Task 6.8 Revise Draft Plan
 Revise Draft Plan incorporating comments from the community and advisory bodies.  Responsible Party: City of Salinas Public Works, TAMC, MCHD and Ecology Action Task 6.9 Plan Adoption
 Revise Draft Plan incorporating input from the community and advisory bodies.  Present final plan to the Salinas City Council, 4 School District Boards and TAMC Board.

Resolve any critical issues.
 The TAMC Board, School District Boards and the City of Salinas will adopt final Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan.
 Once adopted, provide ten hard-copies and one electronic copy of the final report to TAMC, for distribution to the City of Salinas. Credit to Caltrans and other financial contributors must be listed on the cover of the report.  Responsible Party: City of Salinas, TAMC, MCHD and Ecology Action Task 6.10 Project Implementation
 Create press release for plan release.
 Distribute copies of plan to the Public Library, the School Districts, City of Salinas Public Works, TAMC, MCHD, Consultant and Ecology Action. Project recommendations and all research will be available for use in upcoming funding proposals, most notably the Active Transportation Program Cycle 6 submission and future state/federal applications.  Responsible Party: City of Salinas, TAMC, MCHD and Ecology Action Task Deliverable

6.1 Draft School Profiles

6.2 Rating matrix

6.3 Draft Implementation Strategy

6.4 46 Maps

6.5 Administrative Draft Plan

6.6 Draft Plan, including online version

6.7 PowerPoint Presentation & Meeting Summaries

6.8 Draft Final Plan

6.9 Adopted Final Plan, including online version and
10 paper copies

6.10 Press Release
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1

7. Fiscal Management
Task 7.1: Invoicing
 Prepare monthly invoices according to the TAMC format, with all Caltrans-required back up documentation (Ecology Action, MCHD, Salinas, and Consultant).  Submit complete invoice packages to Caltrans District staff based on milestone completion—at least quarterly, but no more frequently than monthly. (TAMC)  Responsible Parties: Ecology Action, MCHD, Consultant and TAMC Task 7.2: Quarterly Reports
 Monitor project progress, prepare and submit quarterly reports to Caltrans District staff providing a summary of project progress and grant/local match expenditures.  Responsible Parties: TAMC & Ecology Action
Task Deliverable

7.1 Invoices and back up documentation

7.2 Quarterly Reports
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21006064-A338-42E5-8F13-46D241B444F1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
C H A PT E R 1

INTRODUCTION
C H A PT E R 2

EXISTING CONDITIONS
C H A PT E R 3

OUTREACH
C H A PT E R 4

CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATIONS
C H A PT E R 5

SCHOOL PROFILES
C H A PT E R 6

IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE

APPENDIX
A. OUTREACH MATERIALS
B. PARENT SURVEY DATA ENGLISH & SPANISH
C. EAST ALISAL STREET TEMPORARY DEMONSTRATION
D. MCKINNON STREET TEMPORARY DEMONSTRATION
E. PRIORITIZED PROJECT LIST
F. PUBLIC COMMENTS
24 2
31 4
55 68
87 349
362
365
396
409
437
484
TABLE

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SALINAS CITY COUNCIL
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
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

CITY OF SALINAS
Andrew Easterling, Traffic Engineer

PROJECT FUNDING PARTNER
California Department of Transportation
Orchid Monroy-Ochoa,
Caltrans District 5 Division of Planning

PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS
Alisal Union School District
Salinas City Elementary School District
Salinas Union High School District
Santa Rita Union School District

PARTNER AGENCIES
Transportation Agency for
Monterey County
Ariana Green, Principal Transportation Planner
Doug Bilse, Principal Engineer
Alissa Guther, Principal Transportation Planner
Monterey County Health Department
Vicente Lara, Management Analyst III
Angelica Chavez,
Chronic Disease Prevention Coordinator
Christina Santanam,
MPH, Chronic Disease Prevention Coordinator
Jeff Domalanta,
Chronic Disease Prevention Specialist II
Ecology Action
Amelia Conlen, Planner
Gino Garcia, Assistant Planner
Alejandra Belalcazar, Outreach Specialist
Aaron Cole, Outreach Specialist
Alta Planning + Design Consultant Team
Brett Hondorp, President
Sam Zneimer, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
Executive Summary 4
The City of Salinas Safe Routes to Schools Plan describes community-identified needs and recommendations for infrastructure projects and programs that support walking, bicycling, and carpooling to 45 schools in Salinas. The plan also identifies possible funding sources and implementation priorities. The recommendations in this plan are aimed at supporting a healthy community, improving affordable transportation options for low-income and vulnerable residents, and helping the City of Salinas achieve its Vision Zero goal and statewide goals to address climate change by reducing vehicle miles traveled.

The vision for all students and families following the
implementation of the City of Salinas Safe Routes to Schools Plan is as follows:
• I can walk or bike to school safely.
• I know that my trip to school helps our environment, builds healthy habits, and saves my family money.
• I am more connected to my neighborhood and community through my trip to school. • I have the skills and confidence I need to travel to school safely without using a car.

I CAN
walk or bike
to school
safely.

I KNOW
that my trip to school
helps our environment,
builds healthy habits, and
saves my family money.

I HAVE
the skills and confidence
I need to travel to school
safely without using a car.

I AM
more connected to my
neighborhood and
community through my
trip to school.

VISION

Executive Summary 6

PLAN CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction. The first chapter describes the purpose of the plan, the benefits of walking and biking to school, and the plan’s relationship to other local planning efforts.

Chapter 2: Existing Conditions. This chapter outlines current conditions in the City of Salinas, including community demographics, commute trends, existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, existing transit services, collision data, and current projects and programs.

Chapter 3: Outreach. The third chapter describes the public outreach process.

It also includes community survey data from the two temporary infrastructure demonstrations that were installed as part of the planning process.

Chapter 4: Citywide Infrastructure and Program
Recommendations. This chapter includes goals related to walking, bicycling, and carpooling to school in Salinas and the process of developing the recommendations in this plan. It also contains recommendations that affect multiple schools, including the network of citywide routes that are recommended for future improvements, streets that have been identified as Safe Routes to Schools corridors, and programmatic recommendations that address education, encouragement, engagement, and equity.

Chapter 5: School Profiles. This chapter contains profiles of each of the 45 school sites, with information on the existing conditions at each school and infrastructure recommendations to make it easier and safer to walk and bike to school. It also includes a guide to the types of infrastructure that are recommended in this plan.

Chapter 6: Implementation and Maintenance. The final chapter discusses opportunities to fund and construct the recommended projects and programs and provides a high-priority project list. It also includes a list of funding sources that the City of Salinas can use to finance the recommended projects and programs, and the methods the City will use to maintain current and future pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Appendices: The appendices include outreach materials, survey data from the parent survey and the temporary installations, the complete project list for all 45 schools, and public comments received for all school sites.

Executive Summary 7
ENCOURAGEMENT:

The majority of children
will arrive at school by
foot, bicycle, scooter,
skateboard, bus, or
carpool
1 SAFETY:

Zero collisions involving
bikes or pedestrians that
result in injury or death
2 EDUCATION:

All children in Salinas
will receive traic
safety education
3 ENGAGEMENT:

Engage the greater
community to create
safe environments
around schools
4 EQUITY:

Ensure all community
members have equitable
access to schools and
Safe Routes to Schools
programming
5 PLAN GOALS
STOP

SCHOOL ZONE
Executive Summary 9

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Salinas and partner agencies have set the following goals and objectives for the future of Safe Routes to Schools, to be accomplished through the projects and programs in this plan.

Goal 1. Encouragement: The majority of children will arrive at school by foot, bicycle, scooter, skateboard, bus, or carpool.
• Objective 1.1: Identify and promote a broad spectrum of projects to provide a connected network of active transportation options along Safe Routes to Schools corridors and connections.
• Objective 1.2: Design and construct street improvements that are accessible and comfortable for all ages and abilities. Incorporate tree planting into active transportation projects to provide shade for people who are walking and bicycling and address City goals for increasing the urban tree canopy. • Objective 1.3: Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), schools, and the City will support events that encourage active transportation to school, such as “Walk & Roll to School,” at least twice each year.
• Objective 1.4: Work with schools and Safe Routes to Schools partners to provide walking school buses at all elementary schools.
• Objective 1.5: Work with schools and Safe Routes to Schools partners to promote Safe Routes to Schools corridors as the preferred routes to school.

Goal 2. Safety: Zero collisions involving bikes or pedestrians that result in injury or death
• Objective 2.1: Prioritize Safe Routes to Schools projects that address fatal and severeinjury crashes. • Objective 2.2: Enhance low-stress route alternatives to high-stress corridors. • Objective 2.3: Prioritize safety over travel delays, speed, congestion, and convenience in project design.
• Objective 2.4: Crossing guards will be present at all elementary schools.

STOP
Executive Summary 10
Goal 3. Education: All children in Salinas will receive traffic safety education • Objective 3.1: Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian safety education into the curriculum in all elementary schools.
• Objective 3.2: By second grade, all children will receive pedestrian safety training in school; by fifth grade, all children will receive bike safety training in school. • Objective 3.3: By high school, students will know the basics of bike maintenance and have opportunities to practice these skills at school or in the community.

Goal 4. Engagement: Engage the greater community to create safe environments around schools
• Objective 4.1: Run annual community-wide campaigns that encourage neighbors to keep eyes on the streets and drivers to reduce speeds around schools. • Objective 4.2: Enforce traffic laws in school zones without overburdening offenders. One example would be a diversion program that requires school zone traffic offenders to assist with crossing guard duties (Austin, TX program model). • Objective 4.3: Recruit volunteers from the community to assist with Safe Routes to Schools programs such as walking school buses and crossing guards.

Goal 5. Equity: Ensure all community members have equitable access to schools and Safe Routes to Schools programming.
• Objective 5.1: Prioritize infrastructure projects that will serve transportationdisadvantaged and special-needs populations. • Objective 5.2: Provide opportunities for a diverse group of community members to take leadership roles in the development and implementation of Safe Routes to Schools projects and programs. An example would be participation in a Safe Routes to Schools steering committee.
• Objective 5.3: Provide access to active transportation and safety equipment such as bicycles, scooters, helmets, and lights.

SCHOOL ZONE
Executive Summary 11
Executive Summary 12

OUTREACH SUMMARY
Public input was the foundation of the process for creating the Safe Routes to Schools Plan.

The planning team developed an outreach plan and sought input from community members to understand school transportation needs and barriers and refine the draft recommendations.

Parent and student surveys, presentations at parent meetings, and walking audits with school staff all contributed input on the barriers to walking and biking to schools in Salinas and the types of improvements that community members would like to see.

Parent Outreach
• 140 presentations at virtual parent meetings.
• 2,425 responses to online parent survey
• 1,341 responses to draft recommendations survey
• 35,000+ parents reached through Parentsquare or social media Student Outreach
• 474 responses to student survey
• 17 elementary schools distributed a traffic-safety scavenger hunt activity to students.

Temporary Installations
• 2 demonstration projects on East Alisal Street and McKinnon Street

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations for the 45 school sites in Salinas include the following:
• 10 miles of Class IV separated bikeway
• 15.8 miles of bicycle boulevards
• 17 roundabouts
• 13 rectangular rapid flashing beacons
• 180 intersections upgraded to
high-visibility crosswalks
High-visibility Crosswalks
Class III Bike Boulevard Class IV separated bikeway
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

OUTREACH SUMMARY
140

PRESENTATIONS

RESPONSES
2,425

DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
2

17 474

RESPONSES
1,341

RESPONSES
35,000+

PARENTS REACHED

Executive Summary 14

CITYWIDE CORRIDOR

RECOMMENDATIONS
The map on page 17 shows existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities along with recommendations for bicycle and
pedestrian corridor improvements throughout the City of Salinas. A description of each facility type can be found below.

BIKE BOULEVARD
Streets with traffic speed and volume management,
designed to create low-stress conditions. In ideal conditions, cyclists share the road with motor vehicles. Bike boulevards manage speeds and volumes using traffic-calming features like diverters, medians, chicanes, and traffic circles. Bike boulevards are usually marked by signs and “sharrows”
and may include branding and wayfinding signs to local
destinations and other low-stress routes.

CLASS I SHARED-USE PATH
Paved rights-of-way that are completely separated from
streets where motor vehicle traffic is prohibited. Shared-use paths are designed for people who are using wheelchairs, walking, bicycling, or skateboarding, or taking other forms of active transportation. Bike paths should offer opportunities not provided by the road system, such as recreational
opportunities or direct high-speed commute routes if crossflow by motor vehicles and pedestrian conflicts can be minimized. The most common applications for shared-use
paths are along waterfronts, canals, utility rights-of-way, abandoned railroad rights-of-way, within school campuses, and within and between parks. There may also be
situations in which such facilities can be provided as part of planned developments.

Executive Summary 15

This can be accomplished by reducing the number of lanes, reducing lane width, or prohibiting or reconfiguring parking to delineate bike lanes. In addition, other things can be done on streets with bike lanes to improve the situation for bicyclists that might not be possible on all streets (e.g., improvements to the surface, augmented sweeping programs, special signal facilities). In general, pavement markings alone will not measurably improve bicycling conditions.

CLASS IIB BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE
Buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes paired with designated buffer spaces separating them from adjacent motor vehicle travel lanes or parking lanes. Buffered bike lanes provide a greater distance between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic and space for bicyclists to pass each other without encroaching into the motor vehicle lane. Buffered bike lanes appeal to a wider cross-section of users and abilities than conventional bike lanes.

CLASS III BICYCLE ROUTE
Routes designated for bicycle travel, with shared-use pavement markings, that are shared with motor vehicles. Shared lane markings help bicyclists with lateral positioning to reduce their chances of hitting the open door of a parked vehicle, to alert road users of the locations bicyclists are likely to occupy in the roadway, and to encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists. Shared-use markings are only feasible on streets with speed limits of 35 mph or less. Bike routes are identified through signage and shared-lane bicycle markings or “sharrows.” Executive Summary 16

CLASS IV CYCLE TRACK
Class IV facilities are protected bike facilities designated for the exclusive use of bicyclists. Cycle tracks are bike facilities separated from motor vehicle traffic by a physical barrier and are distinct from sidewalk and pedestrian areas. Cycle tracks may be one-way or two-way, and may be at street
level, at sidewalk level, or at an intermediate level. If at sidewalk level, a curb or median separates them from motor vehicle traffic, and different pavement colors or textures separate them from the sidewalk. If at street level, they can be separated from motor vehicle traffic by raised curbs or barriers. By separating cyclists from motor vehicle traffic, cycle tracks can offer greater security than bike lanes and are attractive to a wider spectrum of the public. However, cycle tracks can constrain the bikeway and limit the ability of bicyclists to pass each other.

Executive Summary 17
SANTA

RITA ST
W

CURTIS ST

E ROMIE LN

N FIRST ST

GARNER AVE

VICTOR ST
LARKIN
ST

COLLEGE
DR

CLAY ST

HOMESTEAD AVE
LOS

OLIVOS DR
BUCKH
D
ORN
R

RIKER ST
MADRID
ST

CAMBR IAN DR

UNIVERSITY
AVE

CORNWALL
ST

SWANER AVE

VAN BUREN AV E

SAN MIGUEL AVE

CENTRAL AVE
PAJARO
ST

E LAUREL
DR

CHAPARRAL ST

CALIFORNIA
ST

SAN JUAN GRADE RD

W ACACIA ST

AMBROSE
DR

E LAUREL DR TULANE
ST

RIDER AVE

RUSSELL RD

LINCOLN
AVE

BARDIN RD

W LAUREL DR

CHE ROKEE
DR

GEIL ST

EUCALYPTUS
DR

CONSTITU
BLV
TION D
EL

DORADO DR

N SANBORN RD

MCKINNON ST

W ALVIN DR
PASEO
GRANDE

E BOLIVAR
ST

IVER S ON ST
KELTON
DR

NATIVIDAD RD
N MAIN
ST

E ALISAL ST

CHESTNUT
ST

FREEDOM PKWY

SCONBERG
PKWY
TOWT
ST
TYLER
ST

NANTUCKET BLVD

INDEPENDENCE BLVD
LAS

CASI TAS DR

WILLIAMS RD

N DAVIS RD
WESTRI
PKW
DGE
Y

SHERWOOD DR

HARDEN PKWY

E BORONDA RD
CANAL

LAKE TRAIL
CARR

CARR LAKE TRAIL
ALISAL
CREEK

ROGGE RD

ROGGE RD
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Citywide Corridor Recommendations
Existing Facilities
Class I Shared Use
Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class IIB Buffered
Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Separated
Bikeway
Regional Bike
Route
¯ 0 0.5 Miles 1
Salinas Municipal
Airport
Bike Boulevard
Class I Path
Class I or Sidewalk
Class II Bike Lane
Class II or Bike
Boulevard
Class IIB Buffered
Class IIB or Class IV
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Separated
Bikeway
Class IV or Class I
Recommended Facilities
101
183
68 Executive Summary 18

SAFE ROUTES TO

SCHOOLS CORRIDORS
Safe Routes to Schools corridors are streets that have been identified as key routes to Salinas schools. These streets may be good candidates for corridor-level improvements in the future to slow traffic speeds, improve intersections and crossings, and create a safe and comfortable environment for students to walk to school. Class I shared-use paths are completely separated from motor vehicles and offer the most comfortable environment for walking and biking.

Existing and recommended shared-use paths are highlighted as Safe Routes to Schools corridors in the map below.

Executive Summary 19
SANTA

RITA ST

W CURTIS ST

E ROMIE LN

N FIRST ST
FONTES
LN

GARNER AVE

VICTOR ST

LARKIN ST

COLLEGE
DR

CLAY ST

MONTE BEL LA
BLVD

HOMESTEAD AVE

WESTRIDGE
PKWY
LOS

OLIVOS DR
ROCHEX
AVE

WESTMINSTER
DR
BUCKH
D
ORN
R
COUGAR
DR
W

ALISAL ST

RIKER ST

KITTERY
ST

DEL MONTE AVE

CAMBRIAN
DR

SAN VINCENTE
AVE
MODOC
AVE

UNIVERSITY
AVE

CORNWALL
ST

SWANER AVE
VAN

BUREN AVE

S WOOD ST
MARYAL
DR

LINWOOD DR

SAN MIGUEL AVE

CENTRAL AVE

CAPITOL ST

PALMA DR
PAJARO
ST

E LAUREL
DR

CHAPARRAL ST

CALIFORNIA
ST

ARCADIA WAY

TOWT ST

SAN JUAN GRADE RD

TUSCANY BLVD

W ACACIA ST

AMBROSE
DR

E LAUREL DR
REATA
ST
TULANE
ST

RIDER AVE

W LAUREL DR
E

MARKET ST

CHEROKEE
DR
E

CURTIS ST

RUSSELL RD

LINCOLN
AVE

BARDIN RD
RO
RICO G
SSI

REENWAY

CONSTITUTION
BLVD
EL

DORADO DR

N SANBORN RD

MCKINNON ST

E ALISAL ST

W ALVIN DR
PASEO
GRANDE

E BOLIVAR
ST

FREEDOM PKWY

E ALVIN DR

IVERSON
ST
KIP
DR

WILLIAMS RD

CHESTNUT
ST

ROGGE RD
SAUSAL
DR

HARDEN PKWY

NI DEPENDENCE BLVD
TYLER
ST

NANTUCKET BLVD
LAS

CASI T AS DR

N DAVIS RD

JOHN ST

SHERWOOD DR

E BORONDA RD
CANAL

NATIVIDAD RD

LAKE TRAIL
CARR

CARR LAKE TRAIL
ALISAL
CREEK

ROGGE RD
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Safe Routes to Schools Corridors
¯ 0 0.5 Miles 1
Salinas Municipal
Airport
Safe Routes to Schools Corridor
Safe Routes to Schools Corridor - Existing and Recommended Class I Shared Use Path 101
183
68 Executive Summary 20

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION MAX POINTS
Safety
The following points are awarded for bicycle and pedestrian collisions in the last 5 years within 150 ft of the project, for a max score of 30 points:
• 5 points per fatal collision
• 3 points per severe-injury collision
• 1 point per complaint-of-pain collision
30 Access to Key
Destinations
10 points for every school and 5 points for every park, library, and recreation center within 500 ft of the project, for a max of 15 points. 15 Connectivity
and Low Stress
Network
15 points if the project closes a gap in the existing bicycle or pedestrian network or upgrades an existing facility to a class IV bikeway or class I path.
15 Equity
20 points if the project is located within an area designated as <10% most disadvantaged.
20 10 points if the project is located within an area designated as 10%–25% most disadvantaged.
0 points if the project is not located in a disadvantaged area (>25%).

CommunityIdentified Need
20 points if the project or location was identified by members of the community during project outreach.
20 10 points if the project or location was identified in one or more community planning documents.

Total 100

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
This prioritized project list is meant to help decisionmakers and City staff prioritize projects and identify the most competitive projects for various grant funding opportunities. The recommended projects were evaluated using five criteria that are aligned with the vision and goals of this plan and with common grant application criteria.

Equity scores are based on the Healthy Places Index map, which shows data on health indicators such as education, job opportunities, and clean air and water. Each project was assigned a number from 0 to 100 based on the criteria in Table 1.

Table 1: Criteria for Project Prioritization
Executive Summary 21

PRIORITIZED PROJECT LIST
The table below shows the top ten high-priority projects for the City of Salinas. The full project list, including project prioritization scoring, can be found in Appendix E. Tables 3 and 4 show the highest-scoring projects in the small and medium project categories as defined by the California Active Transportation Program, which is one of the primary grant funding sources for active transportation projects.

RANK SCHOOL PROJECT NO. RECOMMENDATION STREET CROSS ST 1 CROSS ST 2 TOTAL EST. COST1 Sherwood Elementary/El Sausal Middle
SE013/ ESM001
Consider protected pedestrian phases at Alisal/Woods, Alisal/Madeira, and Alisal/Hebbron.

Install high-visibility crosswalks and protected bike lanes as outlined in Alisal Vibrancy Plan. Remove on-street parking in front of El Sausal, and shift bus drop-off from Towt to Alisal.

E Alisal St Kern St Skyway Blvd 100 $2,717,020
2 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary/ Jesse G. Sanchez Elementary MLKA008
Short term: Install Class II bike lanes between Laurel and Del Monte. Long term: Widen sidewalk to create multi-use path from Laurel to Garner. Install bike-conflict markings at recreation center entrance and exit driveways. Install raised median with pedestrian refuge islands.

Sanborn Rd Del Monte Ave Laurel Dr 90 $1,799,520
3 Carr Lake Community Day/Mount Toro
High/El Puente
CLCD005
Consolidate bike lanes to one side of the road for a two-way cycle track or multi-use path. Upgrade bike lanes on Natividad between Bernal and Boronda to Class IV separated bikeways and install protected intersection treatments at Bernal to facilitate transition to cycle track.

Sherwood Dr Bernal St Rossi St 86
$12,541,180
4 Creekside Elementary CE016 Upgrade Class II bike lane to Class IV. Constitution Blvd Boronda Rd Indepen- dence 85 $5,458,680 Table 2: High-Priority Project List
Executive Summary 22 RANK SCHOOL PROJECT NO. RECOMMENDATION STREET CROSS ST 1 CROSS ST 2 TOTAL EST. COST 4 Henry F. Kammann HFK006 Install Class IV separated bikeways or Class I multi- use path. W Laurel Dr Davis Rd N Main St 85 $1,200,000 4 Los Padres Elementary LPE002 Install raised median for entire length of John St with landscaping and lighting. Consider other opportunities for traffic calming. John St Salinas St E Alisal St 85 $3,879,220 4 Sherwood Elementary SE012 Install curb extensions and ramps along John St. John St S Wood St Sanborn Rd 85 $3,102,005 5 Fremont Elementary FE014 Install traffic calming, sharrow marking, and bike boulevard signage. Towt St Market St Laurel Dr 81 $550,800 6 Santa Rita Elementary SRE002
Consider bike boulevard with traffic calming between Main St and Van Buren Ave. Consider street trees. Consider sidewalk widening on south side to install multi-use path.

E Bolivar St Main St Van Buren Ave 79 $1,099,800
6 Virginia Rocca Barton Elementary
VRBE020
Install traffic calming (chicanes and removal of parking at those locations), sharrow markings, and bike route signage.

Del Monte Ave Rider Ave Williams Rd 79 $1,815,600
Executive Summary 23
RANK SCHOOL PROJECT NO. RECOMMENDATION STREET CROSS ST 1 CROSS ST 2 TOTAL EST. COST1 Sherwood Elementary/ El Sausal Middle
SE013/
ESM001
Consider protected pedestrian phases at Alisal/
Woods, Alisal/Madeira, and Alisal/Hebbron. Install
high-visibility crosswalks and protected bike lanes as outlined in Alisal Vibrancy Plan. Remove onstreet parking in front of El Sausal, and shift bus drop-off from Towt to Alisal.

E Alisal St Work St Skyway Blvd 100 $2,717,020
2 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary
MLKA008
Short term: install class II bike lanes between Laurel/Del Monte. Long term: widen sidewalk to create multi-use path between Laurel to Garner. Install bike conflict markings at Recreation Center entrance/edit driveways. Install raised median with pedestrian refuge islands.

Sanborn Rd
Del Monte Ave Laurel Dr 90 $1,799,520
3 Henry F.

Kammann
HFK006 Install Class IV separated bikeways or Class I multiuse path W Laurel Dr Davis Rd N Main St 85 $1,200,000 Table 3: Top Three Projects in Active Transportation Program Small Project Category RANK SCHOOL PROJECT NO. RECOMMENDATION STREET CROSS ST 1 CROSS ST 2 TOTAL EST. COST1 Creekside Elementary CE016 Upgrade Class II bike lane to Class IV Constitution Blvd
Boronda Rd Independence 85 $5,458,680
2 Los Padres Elementary
LPE002
Install raised median for entire length of John St with landscaping/lighting. Consider other opportunities for traffic calming.

John St Salinas St E Alisal St 85 $3,879,220
3 Lincoln Elementary
LE006 Install separated bikeways as proposed in
Active Transportation Plan Pajaro St
E Blanco Rd E Market St 68 $6,522,660
Table 4: Top Three Projects in Active Transportation Program Medium Project Category

Introduction 25
The City of Salinas Safe Routes to
Schools Plan describes community-identified
needs and recommendations for infrastructure
projects and programs that support walking,
bicycling, and carpooling to 45 schools in Salinas.

The plan also identifies possible funding sources and
implementation priorities. The recommendations
in this plan are aimed at supporting a healthy
community, improving affordable transportation
options for low-income and vulnerable residents,
and helping the City of Salinas achieve its Vision Zero goal and statewide goals to address climate change
by reducing vehicle miles traveled.

Public input was the foundation of the planning
process to identify transportation needs and
opportunities. The recommendations in this plan
were developed through engagement with school
staff, parents, and other stakeholders, and an
analysis of walking and biking needs.

This plan was funded with a Sustainable
Communities Transportation Planning Grant
from the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) and local matching funds, and it is aligned
with the regional and statewide plans and concepts
that are included in the Caltrans District 5 Active
Transportation Plan. Some of the recommended
improvement opportunities are within Caltrans’s
right of way, and as the owner and operator of the
state highway system, Caltrans will require further
analysis of these planning-level concepts and final
approval if the City of Salinas seeks implementation.
1 Active-transportation trips are any trips made by human-powered transporation, including walking, bicycling, and riding scooters and skateboards.
2 California Air Resources Board: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data.

BENEFITS OF SAFE ROUTES

TO SCHOOLS
The simple act of traveling to school can have
a tremendous positive impact on the health of
students and families. Salinas faces challenges
from traffic around schools, youth obesity
rates, and collisions involving youths who are
walking or bicycling. More carpooling and activetransportation1 trips will provide the
following benefits:
• Healthier students: Walking or riding a bike,
scooter, or skateboard to school is good exercise,
improves fitness, and has been demonstrated to
improve academic performance.
• Safer trips: Shifting trips to walking, biking,
or carpooling reduces traffic congestion and
increases safety.
• Lower transportation costs: Carpooling,
walking, and biking provide low- or no-cost
alternatives to driving.
• Cleaner air and environment: Transportation is
the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions
in California.2 Shifting car trips to walking and
biking improves air quality around schools and
helps our planet.

Introduction 26

VISION ZERO
Vision Zero is a strategy for eliminating severe traffic injuries and fatalities while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility, and it has been implemented in cities around the world. Vision Zero starts with the belief that traffic deaths are preventable and brings together traffic engineers, policymakers, and public health professionals to work toward engineering and enforcement solutions. The Salinas City Council adopted a Vision Zero policy in 2020 and developed a Vision Zero Action Plan later that year. The action plan identifies the city streets with the highest concentrations of fatal and severe-injury collisions, and actions that can be taken to reduce those. Learn more here:
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/public-works/current-projects/vision-zero

THE SIX ES
This plan’s recommendations are grouped into the Six Es of Safe Routes to Schools, as defined by the Safe Routes Partnership. The Six Es are a nationally recognized framework for increasing walking and biking to schools.
• Engagement: Start the process of developing Safe Routes to Schools initiatives by listening to families, students, teachers, and other community members, and include ongoing opportunities for participation in program structures. • Equity: Ensure that Safe Routes to Schools initiatives benefit everyone, with particular attention to low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, and other transportation-disadvantaged populations. • Engineering: Make physical improvements to streets and neighborhoods that improve traffic flow near schools and make walking and biking safer, more comfortable, and more convenient.
• Education: Provide students and families with the skills to get to school safely, and inform them on the wide range of transportation options. • Encouragement: Provide events, activities, and programs that raise awareness and build support for safe and healthy transportation such as walking and biking. • Evaluation: Regularly assess which approaches to Safe Routes to Schools are more and less successful.

Introduction 27

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
As part of the development of this Safe Routes to Schools Plan, other relevant plans were consulted to ensure consistency with their recommendations. Consistency with these plans is discussed below.
2022 MONTEREY COUNTY REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was produced by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC). The RTP identifies transportation needs for the county, estimates the available funding through 2045, and sets goals for the future of our transportation system. This Safe Routes to Schools Plan is aligned with the vision and goals of the RTP, including access and mobility, safety and health, and equity.

MONTEREY COUNTY ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION PLAN (ATP)
The 2018 Monterey County ATP, developed by TAMC, identifies gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian network and areas of opportunity for improving the design of bicycle facilities. The ATP is used to pursue grant funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects and to prioritize projects that are funded through Measure X, the Monterey County transportation sales tax measure.

The Safe Routes to Schools Plan aligns with the goals of the ATP, including increased active-transportation trips, improved safety for people who are walking and biking, and equitable access to active-transportation facilities. The ATP project list was reviewed during the development of this plan, and some ATP projects were incorporated into the project list.

CITY OF SALINAS GENERAL PLAN
The Safe Routes to Schools Plan is aligned with the goals of the 2002 General Plan, including the goal of providing a safe and extensive bicycle network and providing safe routes to schools and other destinations for people who are walking. The City of Salinas is currently updating its general plan, and the updated plan will be released after the completion of this Safe Routes to Schools Plan. The recommendations of the Safe Routes to Schools Plan support the guiding principles for the updated general plan as described in Visión Salinas, including goals for connectivity, access, and mobility.

Introduction 28

SALINAS BIKEWAYS PLAN
The 2002 Bikeways Plan describes existing and proposed bicycle facilities within the city, some of which have been installed since the plan was published. Although the TAMC Active Transportation Plan has updated the proposed bicycle network, the Bikeways Plan was also reviewed and used for context during the development of this Safe Routes to Schools Plan.

SALINAS CROSSWALK POLICY GUIDELINES
The Salinas Crosswalk Policy provides a methodology for responding to crosswalk requests and lays out the criteria for the installation of a marked crosswalk. It also includes a toolbox of treatments that can be used to enhance crosswalks. All the recommendations for new marked crosswalks in this plan require further analysis and must meet the guidelines of the crosswalk policy in order to be installed.

SALINAS NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program sets policies for traffic calming in residential neighborhoods and lays out the process for residents to request trafficcalming treatments in their neighborhoods. Neighborhood support and cost-sharing are required for new traffic-calming measures to be installed. The document also includes a toolbox of approved traffic-calming measures. The traffic-calming measures recommended in this Safe Routes to Schools Plan are aligned with the approved measures from the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Learn more here:
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/public-works/current-projects/trafficcalming

SALINAS PEDESTRIAN PLAN
The 2004 Pedestrian Plan outlines goals and strategies for improving walkability in Salinas and reducing collisions with people who are walking. The proposed walking districts and project list were reviewed and used for context during development of this Safe Routes to Schools Plan.

Introduction 29

SPECIFIC AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS
Specific plans for various areas of the city were reviewed during the preparation of the Safe Routes to Schools Plan, and relevant bicycle and pedestrian projects were incorporated into the plan’s project list. The plans reviewed included the following:
• Alisal Vibrancy Plan
• Central Area Specific Plan
• Downtown Vibrancy Plan
• East Alisal Street Corridor Plan
• Salinas Bike Lane VMT Banking Projects
• Urban Greening Plan
• West Area Specific Plan

COORDINATION WITH

NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS
The City of Salinas Safe Routes to Schools Plan includes recommendations for roadways in unincorporated Monterey County. All recommendations for county roadways were reviewed with County staff.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing Conditions 31
This chapter discusses current conditions in Salinas
related to walking, bicycling, and transit use. This
includes citywide demographics and commute
trends, land use and community destinations,
existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, current
transit options, collision data related to walking and
bicycling, bicycle and pedestrian projects that are
currently in progress, and existing programs.

DEMOGRAPHICS
Salinas is the largest city in the Monterey Bay region
and was home to an estimated 160,206 residents in
2021.1
The city has a large youth population, with
31% of residents being under the age of 18.2
Seniors represent a smaller proportion of city
residents, with 9% of residents being over the age
of 65.2 The median age of the residents is 30.5,
which is lower than the median age for Monterey
County as a whole.2
Among Salinas residents, 13% identify as white, 80%
as Hispanic or Latino, and 6% as Asian. Forty-one
percent of residents did not finish high school, and
23% completed high school as their highest level
of education. About one-third of residents have at
least some higher education, and 13% have either a
bachelor’s or a graduate degree.2
Active transportation investments are especially
important in disadvantaged communities,
which tend to have higher rates of walking and
bicycling. According to the California Department
of Education, 81% of students in Salinas public
1 State of California Department of Finance, 2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/ 2 Census American Community Survey 2015–2019 Selected Characteristics of US Populations, Table SO601. 3 State of California Department of Education, 2021. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/filessp.asp 4 Census American Community Survey 2015–2019 Selected Economic Characteristics, Table DP03. 5 Census American Community Survey 2015–2019 Commuting Characteristics by Sex, Table SO801. schools qualify for free and reduced meals, which is
a sign of low-income status.3 Thirty-nine percent of
households have incomes of less than $50,000 per
year, and 20% of families with children under the
age of 18 have incomes below the poverty level.4

COMMUTE TRENDS
An estimated 67,399 Salinas residents over the age
of 16 are employed, and nearly three-quarters of
those drive to work alone. Salinas has a higher rate
of driving to work alone than the neighboring City
of Monterey but a similar rate to Monterey County as
a whole.5

Overall, 10% of Salinas residents carpool to work,
and 1.1% walk to work. Fewer than 1% bike to work
or take public transit. Before the covid-19 pandemic,
nearly 3% of residents worked from home, and that
number is assumed to have increased since 2020.5

Although some Salinas commuters travel outside
Monterey County for work, the majority (91%) stay
within the county for their work trips. The average
commute time to places of employment for Salinas
residents is 24 minutes. Twenty-six percent of
commuters travel for more than 30 minutes daily,
and 10% of commuters travel for 45 minutes or
more.5

Although commute trips offer the best available
data on travel modes, they represent only a
percentage of trips. Comprehensive data on the
percentage of Salinas residents walking or bicycling
for other daily trips are not available.

Existing Conditions 32

LAND USE AND

COMMUNITY DESTINATIONS
Public K–12 schools are located throughout the City of Salinas, and there are several colleges and universities within the city. Commercial areas are located along North Main Street, East Alisal Street, and Sanborn Road, and in the historic downtown. Other key destinations include parks and recreation centers, libraries, transit centers, and medical facilities.

Figure 1. Work Commute Travel Modes in Salinas
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

2.7%
11% 1.1%

0.1%

0.8%

10.2%

74.1%
Worked from Home
Taxicab, Motorcycle, or Other Means
Bicycle
Walked
Public Transportation
Carpooled
Drove Alone
Existing Conditions 33

RIDER AVE

E MARKET ST

GARNER AVE

SAN JUAN GRADE RD

CHAPARRAL ST

E ALISAL ST
DEL

MONTE AVE

GRIFFIN
ST

W ACACIA ST

CENTRAL AVE
E

ROSSI ST

N MAIN ST
MARYAL
DR

TOWT ST
IRIS
DR
EMARKE
ST
T

E LAUREL DR

W LAUREL DR
EL
DORADO
DR

ALISAL RD

W ALISAL ST

MCKINNON
ST

IVERSON
ST

S SANBORN RD

PALERMODR

LA S C A SITAS DR

ARCADIA WAY
FALCON
DR

JOHN ST

E BORONDA RD

PALMA DR

RUSSELL RD
CONS
BL

TITUTION
VD

SHERWOOD
DR

WILLIAMS RD

HARDEN PKWY

CHEROKEE DR

LINWOOD
DR

PAJARO ST
S WOOD
ST

CALIFORNIA
ST

BARDIN RD

VAN BUR EN
AVE

NANTUCKETBLVD

COLLEGE
DR
VILLA
ST

N SANBORN RD

E BLANCO RD

HARRIS RD

E ALVIN DR

BORONDA
RD

NATIVIDAD RD

BORONDA
RD

W ROSSI ST

W BLANCO RD

N DAVIS
RD

CAPITOL ST

FREEDOM PKWY

W ALVIN
DR

AIRPORT
BLVD
HANSEN
ST

SANJOSE ST

ROGGE RD

E ACACIA
ST

KERN ST

INDEPENDENCEBLVD

HARKINS RD

E ROMIE LN
CAL
DEL
LE
ADOBE

AIRPORT BLVD

ESPINOSA RD

DAVIS RD

WORK ST

SAN MIGUEL
AVE

PALER MO C T SCONBERG
PKWY

POST DR
OLD
STAGE
RD

SKYWAY BLVD

FOSTER RD

HITCHCOCK RD

HUNTER LN
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, City of Salinas, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Land Use & Key Destinations
Land Use*
P ar k /O p en S p a ce
Commercia l Area
Ci ty L im i ts
Points of Interest
K-12 School
College/University
Library
City Hall
Transit Center
¯ 0 0.5 Miles 1
Salinas Municipal
Airport
101
68 183
*Includes future growth area.

Existing Conditions 34

EXISTING BICYCLE NETWORK
There are currently four types of bicycle facilities in Salinas: Class I shared-use paths, Class II bicycle lanes, Class IIB buffered bike lanes, and Class IV separated bikeways. Other streets have been designated as Class III bicycle routes or regional routes. See below for definitions of each type of bicycle facility.

CLASS I SHARED-USE PATH
Paved rights-of-way that are completely separated from streets, and where motor vehicle traffic is prohibited. Shared-use paths are designed for people who are using wheelchairs, walking, bicycling, or skateboarding, or taking other forms of active transportation. Bike paths should offer opportunities not provided by the road system, such as recreational opportunities or direct high-speed commute routes if cross-flow by motor vehicles and pedestrian conflicts can be minimized. The most common applications for shared-use paths are along waterfronts, canals, utility rights-of-way, and abandoned railroad rights-of-way, within school campuses, and within and between parks. There may also be situations in which such facilities can be provided as part of planned developments.

CLASS II BICYCLE LANE
On-street facilities that use striping and stencils to designate space for bicycle travel. Bike lanes are intended to delineate the rights-of-way assigned to bicyclists and motorists and to provide for more predictable movements by each user. A more important reason for constructing bike lanes is to better accommodate bicyclists in corridors where there is insufficient room for sideby-side sharing of streets by motorists and bicyclists. This can be accomplished by reducing the number of lanes, reducing lane width, or prohibiting or reconfiguring parking to delineate bike lanes. In addition, other things can be done on streets with bike lanes to improve the situation for bicyclists that might not be possible on all streets (e.g., improvements to the surface, augmented sweeping programs, special signal facilities). In general, pavement markings alone do not measurably enhance bicycling conditions.

Existing Conditions 35

CLASS IIB BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE
Buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes paired with designated buffer spaces separating them from adjacent motor vehicle travel lanes or parking lanes. Buffered bike lanes provide a greater distance between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic and space for bicyclists to pass each other without encroaching on the vehicle lane. Buffered bike lanes appeal to a wider cross-section of users and abilities than conventional bike lanes.

CLASS III BICYCLE ROUTE
Routes designated for bicycle travel, with shared-use pavement markings, that are shared with motor vehicles. Shared-lane markings help bicyclists with lateral positioning to reduce their chances of hitting the open door of a parked vehicle, to alert road users to the locations bicyclists are likely to occupy in the roadway, and to encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists. Shareduse markings are only feasible on streets with speed limits of 35 mph or less. Bike routes are identified with signage and sharedlane bicycle markings or “sharrows.”

CLASS IV CYCLE TRACK
Class IV facilities are protected facilities designated for the exclusive use of bicyclists. Cycle tracks are separated from motor vehicle traffic by a physical barrier and are distinct from sidewalk and pedestrian areas. Cycle tracks may be one-way or two-way, and may be at street level, at sidewalk level, or at an intermediate level. If at sidewalk level, a curb or median separates them from motor vehicle traffic, and different pavement colors or textures separate them from sidewalks. If at street level, they can be separated from motor vehicle traffic by raised curbs or barriers. By separating cyclists from motor vehicle traffic, cycle tracks offer greater security than bike lanes and are attractive to a wider spectrum of the public. However, cycle tracks can constrain bikeways and limit the ability of bicyclists to pass each other.

Existing Conditions 36

REGIONAL BIKE ROUTES
The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC)
developed a Pedestrian and Bicyclist Wayfinding Plan
for Monterey County in 2016, which identified a network of regional bicycle routes. Regional routes connect key destinations within the county and either currently have Class I, Class II, or Class III bicycle facilities, or are planned to have bicycle facilities in the future.

Class I shared-use paths in Salinas are mostly
located within parks and open spaces, including the
Rossi Rico Linear Parkway, Cesar Chavez Community
Park, Constitution Soccer Complex, Natividad Creek
Community Park, and the Gabilan Creek Wilderness
Sanctuary. There are also several short connectors,
such as the path connecting North Salinas High
School with Chaparral Street and paths adjacent
to East Market Street between Front Street and
Sherwood Drive. The Creekbridge neighborhood is
especially well-served by Class I paths, with
four paths connecting schools, parks, and
wilderness areas.

Class II bicycle lanes are located primarily on arterial streets, including Boronda Road, McKinnon Street,
Independence Boulevard, Davis Road, and Blanco
Road. Over the last five years, the City of Salinas
has also installed buffered bicycle lanes on several
streets, including Alvin Drive, Linwood Drive, East
Rossi Street, John Street, Bardin Road, Constitution
Boulevard, portions of Sherwood Drive, Monte Bella
Boulevard, Blanco Road, Boronda Road, and East
Alisal Street. The City also installed the first Class IV separated bikeway on East Market Street in front of
Fremont Elementary in 2017.

Class III bicycle routes in Salinas have been
identified primarily for wayfinding purposes to
guide people on bikes to preferred routes when
there are no streets with bicycle lanes. Many streets
near schools, including Acacia Street, Towt Street,
Las Casitas Drive, and Van Buren Avenue, have been
identified as bicycle routes.

Existing Conditions 37

RIDER AVE

E MARKET ST

GARNER AVE

SAN JUAN GRADE RD

CHAPARRAL ST

E ALISAL ST
DEL

MONTE AVE

GRIFFIN
ST

W ACACIA ST

CENTRAL AVE
E

ROSSI ST

N MAIN ST
MARYAL
DR

TOWT ST
IRIS
DR
EMARKE
ST
T

E LAUREL DR

W LAUREL DR
EL
DORADO
DR

ALISAL RD

W ALISAL ST

MCKINNON
ST

IVERSON
ST

S SANBORN RD

PALERMODR

LA S C A SITAS DR

ARCADIA WAY
FALCON
DR

JOHN ST

E BORONDA RD

PALMA DR

RUSSELL RD
CONS
BL

TITUTION
VD

SHERWOOD
DR

WILLIAMS RD

HARDEN PKWY

CHEROKEE DR

LINWOOD
DR

PAJARO ST
S WOOD
ST

CALIFORNIA
ST

BARDIN RD

VAN BUR EN
AVE

NANTUCKETBLVD

COLLEGE
DR
VILLA
ST

N SANBORN RD

E BLANCO RD

HARRIS RD

E ALVIN DR

BORONDA
RD

NATIVIDAD RD

BORONDA
RD

W ROSSI ST

W BLANCO RD

N DAVIS
RD

CAPITOL ST

FREEDOM PKWY

W ALVIN
DR

AIRPORT
BLVD
HANSEN
ST

SANJOSE ST

ROGGE RD

E ACACIA
ST

KERN ST

INDEPENDENCEBLVD

HARKINS RD

E ROMIE LN
CAL
DEL
LE
ADOBE

AIRPORT BLVD

ESPINOSA RD

DAVIS RD

WORK ST

SAN MIGUEL
AVE

PALER MO C T SCONBERG
PKWY

POST DR
OLD
STAGE
RD

SKYWAY BLVD

FOSTER RD

HITCHCOCK RD

HUNTER LN
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Existing Bikeways
Class I Shared Use
Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class IIB Buffered
Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Separated
Bikeway
Regional Bike Route
¯ 0 0.5 Miles 1
Salinas Municipal
Airport
K-12 School
College/University
Library
City Hall
Transit Center
City Limits
101
183
68 Existing Conditions 38

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
The City of Salinas has good sidewalk coverage, with sidewalk present on nearly all roadways. There is missing sidewalk on some roadways on the edge or outside of city limits, such as East Blanco Road between North Main Street and Blanco Circle, Natividad Road north of Boronda Road, and San Juan Grade Road north of Boronda Road.

Natividad Road and San Juan Grade Road have seen increased pedestrian traffic since the construction of Rancho San Juan High School, which is located on the northern edge of Salinas city limits.

The City of Salinas conducted a sidewalk conditions analysis in 2017 to determine whether existing sidewalks met Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Factors such as obstructions, vegetation, and slope were used to score each segment of sidewalk, and these data were used to prioritize sidewalk repair projects.

Curb ramps provide access between the sidewalk and the street for people with disabilities, children on bicycles, and people pushing strollers. Under the ADA, upgraded curb ramps must include warnings that are detectable by people with vision impairments.

As the City repaves streets and installs roadway improvements, upgraded curb ramps are installed at intersections to comply with ADA standards.

In addition to sidewalks, Salinas contains 8.2 miles of Class I shared-use paths. These paths are mostly located in parks and open spaces, including the Rossi Rico Linear Parkway, Cesar Chavez Community Park, Constitution Soccer Complex, Natividad Creek Community Park, and the Gabilan Creek Wilderness Sanctuary. There are also several short connectors, such as the path connecting North Salinas High School with Chaparral Street and paths adjacent to East Market Street between Front Street and Sherwood Drive. The Creekbridge neighborhood is especially well-served by Class I paths, with four paths connecting schools, parks, and wilderness areas.

ADA compliant curb ramps near Monte Bella Elementary Class I path near North Salinas High Existing Conditions 39

EXISTING TRANSIT

SERVICES
Each of the four school districts in Salinas has a
different policy on school busing, though all the
districts provide transportation for students
with disabilities.

Salinas Union High School District (SUHSD) offers
busing to students who live more than two miles
away from their home school, including service to
rural areas outside Salinas. Regular service is offered to all SUHSD schools except for La Paz Middle,
where all students lived within two miles of the
school as of the 2021–22 school year.

Salinas City Unified School District offers bus
transportation for students who live more than

1.25 miles from school. El Gabilan, Kamman,
Laurel Wood, Lincoln, Mission Park, and Sherwood
Elementary Schools are not served by regular bus
routes because all students at those schools lived
within the 1.25-mile boundary during the 2021–22
school year.

Santa Rita Union School District offers bus service
to all students in grades K–3 who live more than

0.75 miles from school, and all students in grades
4–8 who live more than one mile from their school.

Bus routes serve all Santa Rita schools except
Santa Rita Elementary, where all students live
within one mile of the school. Routes include service
to rural neighborhoods north and east of the Bolsa
Knolls neighborhood.

Alisal Union Elementary School District provides
transportation to students in grades K–3 who live at
least one mile from their school, and to all students
in grades 4–6 who live at least 1.5 miles from school.

In addition to transportation offered by school
districts, Monterey-Salinas Transit offers bus
transportation to the public, including some
students traveling to school in Salinas. Youths aged
18 and younger receive discounted fares for all
trips. In summer 2022, bus routes included service
to about half of the middle and high schools.

Rancho San Juan High School, Gutierrez Middle
School, Gavilan View Middle School, Mount Toro
High School, El Puente, Carr Lake Community Day
School, and Washington Middle were not served
directly by MST routes.

Existing Conditions 40

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
Bicycle and pedestrian-related collision data can be used to identify high-level collision trends and locations with high rates of bicycle and pedestrian collisions. This analysis uses data from UC Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) over the ten-year period from 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2019. It is important to note that the TIMS data include reported injury collisions only. Many bicycle and pedestrian collisions are not reported and therefore are not represented in this analysis.

Salinas has high rates of collisions involving both bicyclists and pedestrians, with 554 pedestrian collisions and 385 bicyclist collisions between 2010 and 2019.6 In the 2018
California Office of Traffic Safety crash rankings report, Salinas ranked among the top ten for pedestrian collisions and third-worst for pedestrian collisions involving youths under 15, among cities of similar size.7
Salinas also ranked in the top ten for bicycle collisions involving youths under 15 and was one of the top five cities for alcohol-related collisions, again in comparison to cities of a similar size.7
People walking and bicycling in Salinas are disproportionately involved in collisions relative to people who are driving. Data from the Salinas Vision Zero Action Plan show that between 2009 and 2018, 38% of serious-injury and fatality collisions in Salinas involved pedestrians and 11% involved bicyclists.8
This is disproportionate to walking and
biking rates in the city; less than 2% of work trips are made by walking or bicycling.9 In response to these high collision rates, the Salinas City Council adopted a Vision Zero policy in 2020 and developed a Vision Zero Action Plan later that year. The action plan identifies the city streets with the highest concentrations of fatal and severe-injury collisions and actions that can be taken to reduce those collisions. Vision Zero is a strategy for eliminating severe traffic injuries and fatalities while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility, and brings together traffic engineers, policymakers, and public health professionals to work toward engineering and enforcement solutions. 6 Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2021 7 California Office of Traffic Safety, 2018
8 City of Salinas Vision Zero Action Plan, 2021. https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/publicworks/current-projects/vision-zero/news/salinas-vision-zero-action-plan 9 Census American Community Survey 2015–2019 Commuting Characteristics by Sex, Table SO801.

Existing Conditions 41
Figure 2. Annual Pedestrian Collisions
Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Injury (complaint of pain)
Injury (other visible)
Severe Injury
Fatal
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
0 100
200

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Over the ten-year study period, there
were 554 pedestrian collisions in
Salinas, with an average of 55 per
year. The number increased to 76
in 2018, but the upward trend did
not continue in 2019. There were 37
fatal pedestrian collisions in the tenyear period. One hundred collisions caused severe injuries, 228 resulted
in some “other visible injury,” and
189 resulted in a “complaint of pain.”
Existing Conditions 42

SAN JUAN GRADE RD

RIDER AVE

E MARKET ST

GARNER AVE

CHAPARRAL ST

E ALISAL ST

HITCHCOCK RD
DEL

MONTE AVE

GRIFFIN
ST

W ACACIA ST

CENT RAL AVE
E

ROSSI ST

N MAIN ST
MARYAL
DR

TOWT ST
IRIS
DR

E MARKET ST

E LAUREL DR

W LAUREL DR
EL

DORADO DR

ALISAL RD

W ALISAL ST

MCKINNON
ST

IVERSON
ST

S SANBORN RD

HARKINS RD

PALERMO
DR

L AS C ASITAS D R

ARCADIA WAY
FALCON
DR

JOHN ST

E BORONDA RD

PALMA DR

RUSSELL RD

CONSTIT
B

UTION LVD

SHERWOOD
DR

WILLIAMS RD

HARDEN PKWY
JOHN
ST

CHEROKEE DR

LINWOOD DR

PAJARO ST
S WOOD
ST

CALIFORNIA ST

BARDIN RD

VAN BUREN
AVE

NANTUCKETBLVD

COLLEGE
DR
VILLA
ST

N SANBORN RD

E BLANCO RD

HARRIS RD

E ALVIN DR

BORONDA
RD

NATIVIDAD RD

BORONDA
RD

W ROSSI ST

W BLANCO RD

N DAVIS RD

CAPITOL ST

FREEDOM PKWY

W ALVIN
DR

AIRPORT
BLVD
HANSEN
ST

SANJOSE ST

ROGGE RD

E ACACIA
ST

KERN ST

INDEPENDENCEBLVD

E ROMIE LN
DEL
CALLE
ADOBE

AIRPORT BLVD

ESPINOSA RD

WORK ST

DAVIS RD

SAN MIGUEL
AVE

PAL E R M O CT SCONBERG
PKWY

POST DR
OLD
STAGE
RD

SKYWAY BLVD

FOSTER RD

HUNTER LN
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Pedestrian Collisions, 2010 - 2019
Pedestrian Collisions
¯ 0 0.5 Miles 1
Salinas Municipal
Airport
K-12 School
College/University
Library
City Hall
Transit Center
City Limits
1 11 - 14
2 - 5
6 - 10
101
183
68 Existing Conditions 43

PEDESTRIAN COLLISION TRENDS
Pedestrian collision locations are shown in Map 3.

Key takeaways of the analysis include the following:
• 46% of fatality collisions in Salinas involved
people walking, though only 12% of collisions
in total involved pedestrians. Pedestrians are
more likely to be killed in collisions than people
who are driving.
• 36% of pedestrian collisions involve youths
aged 19 or younger. People in this age group
were more than twice as likely to be involved
in a pedestrian collision as people in their 20s.

Twenty-two percent of collisions involved youths
under 14.
• North Main Street was the location with the
most pedestrian collisions, with 10% of all
pedestrian collisions occurring on North Main
Street. East Market Street and North Sanborn
Road were the second- and third-most common
pedestrian collision locations.
• North Main Street was the top locations for
fatal pedestrian collisions, followed by East
Laurel Drive and Highway 101.
• The most common type of violation, according
to the reporting law enforcement officer, was
driver failure to yield to pedestrians at a marked
or unmarked crosswalk, which accounted for
40% of all collisions. The second most common
violation was pedestrian failure to yield rightof-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked or unmarked crosswalk, which
accounted for 30% of collisions. The third most
common violation was driver speed, which
accounted for 3% of collisions.

Figure 3. Severity of Pedestrian Collisions
Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)

6.5%

17.4%

39.7%

32.9%
Injury (Complaint of Pain)
Injury (Other Visible)
Severe Injury
Fatal
Existing Conditions 44

BICYCLE SAFETY
Over the ten-year study period, there were 385
bicycle-related injury collisions in Salinas, with an
average of 38 collisions per year. The number of
collisions increased to 61 in 2013, but this trend
did not continue in subsequent years. In 2018, the
number of bicycle-involved collisions increased
again, and more data monitoring will be needed to
see whether this trend continues.

There were five fatal bicycle collisions within the
ten-year period. Thirty-eight collisions caused severe
injuries, 179 resulted in an “other visible injury,” and 163 resulted in a “complaint of pain.”
Figure 4. Severity of Bicycle Collisions
Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)

10.1%

47.8%

1.3%

43.6%
Injury (Complaint of Pain)
Injury (Other Visible)
Severe Injury
Fatal
Existing Conditions 45

BICYCLE COLLISION TRENDS
Bicycle-related collision locations are shown in
Map 4. Key takeaways from the analysis include
the following:
• 11% of collisions resulting in severe injury or
fatality in Salinas involved people on bikes.

Although bicycle trips make up only a small
percentage of the trips in Salinas, cyclists are
disproportionally involved in severe-injury and
fatal collisions.
• North Main Street was the location with the
most bicycle-related collisions, with 15% of
collisions taking place on this major arterial
street. East Alisal Street and East Market Street
were the second and third most common
collision locations.
• The top five streets for bicycle collisions were
all major arterials that did not have complete
bicycle lanes in 2019. Thirty percent of collisions
took place on these five streets: North Main
Street, East Alisal Street, East Market Street,
John Street, and East Alvin Drive.
• Youths aged 19 or younger were involved in
36% of bicycle collisions. Youths aged 15–19
were the top age group for bicycle collisions
and were involved in 21% of collisions. Male
cyclists were much more likely to be involved in
collisions and made up 73% of crash victims.
• The three most common bicycle collision
factors, according to the reporting law
enforcement officer, were riding or driving on
the wrong side of the road (37%), automobile
right-of-way violations (21%), and traffic signals
and signs (13%).

Figure 5. Annual Bicycle Collisions
Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Injury (complaint of pain)
Injury (other visible)
Severe Injury
Fatal
0 100
200
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Existing Conditions 46

RIDER AVE

E MARKET ST

GARNER AVE

SAN JUAN GRADE RD

CHAPARRAL ST

E ALISAL ST

HITCHCOCK RD
DEL

MONTE AVE

GRIFFIN
ST

W ACACIA ST

CENT RAL AVE
E

ROSSI ST

N MAIN ST
MARYAL
DR

TOWT ST
IRIS
DR

E MARKET ST

E LAUREL DR

W LAUREL DR
EL
DORADO
DR

ALISAL RD

W ALISAL ST

MCKINNON
ST

IVERSON
ST

S SANBORN RD

PALERMO
DR

AL SCA SITAS DR

ARCADIA WAY
FALCON
DR

JOHN ST

E BORONDA RD

PALMA DR

RUSSELL RD

CONSTITUTION BLVD

SHERWOOD
DR

WILLIAMS RD

HARDEN PKWY
JOHN
ST

CHEROKEE DR

LINWOOD DR

PAJARO ST
S WOOD
ST

CALIFORNIA
ST

BARDIN RD

VAN BUREN
AVE

NANTUCKETBLVD

COLLEGE
DR
VILLA
ST

N SANBORN RD

E BLANCO RD

HARRIS RD

E ALVIN DR

BORONDA
RD

NATIVIDAD RD

BORONDA
RD

W ROSSI ST

W BLANCO RD

N DAVIS RD

CAPITOL ST

FREEDOM PKWY

W ALVIN
DR

AIRPORT
BLVD
HANSEN
ST

SANJOSE ST

ROGGE RD

E ACACIA
ST

KERN ST

INDEPENDENCEBLVD

HARKINS RD

E ROMIE LN
CAL
DEL
LE
ADOBE

AIRPORT BLVD

ESPINOSA RD

WORK ST

DAVIS RD

OLD STAG
E RD

SAN MIGUEL
AVE

PAL E R M O CT SCONBERG
PKWY

POST DR

SKYWAY BLVD

FOSTER RD

HUNTER LN
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Bicycle Collisions, 2010 - 2019
¯ 0 0.5 Miles 1
Salinas Municipal
Airport
Bicycle Collisions
1 6 - 8
2 - 3
4 - 5
K-12 School
College/University
Library
City Hall
Transit Center
City Limits
Class I Shared Use
Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class IIB Buffered Bike
Lane
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Separated
Bikeway
Regional Bike Route
Existing Bikeways
101
183
68 Existing Conditions 47

CURRENT AND RECENTLY

COMPLETED PROJECTS
There are several major projects that have been completed recently or are underway to provide new bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Salinas. The City of Salinas continues to apply for and be awarded grant funding for Safe Routes to Schools improvements.

ALVIN DRIVE/LINWOOD DRIVE SAFE ROUTES TO

SCHOOLS PROJECT
The City of Salinas received a grant to make improvements along the Alvin Drive and Linwood Drive corridors, which are routes to four schools. On Alvin Drive, the project included reducing the number of vehicle lanes from four to two and installing buffered bike lanes, green bicycle boxes and conflict markings, high-visibility crosswalks, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian curb ramps, and new traffic signals with pedestrian countdown signal heads. The project also included new bicycle lanes or buffered bicycle lanes and highvisibility crosswalks on Linwood Drive, Maryal Drive, and Chaparral Street. The project started construction in 2020 and was completed in 2021.

BARDIN ROAD SAFE ROUTES TO

SCHOOLS PROJECT
The City of Salinas received federal and local grant funding to redesign Bardin Road near Bardin Elementary and East Alisal Street near the Hartnell College East campus. The project includes two roundabouts, which slow down traffic and reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians. On Bardin Road, the project also includes a reduction in vehicle lanes from four to two, buffered bicycle lanes, high-visibility crosswalks, curb extensions, pedestrian curb ramps, and a rectangular rapid flashing beacon. On East Alisal Street, the project includes buffered bike lanes, high-visibility crosswalks, curb extensions, a rectangular rapid flashing beacon, and a new pedestrian path between the Hartnell College driveway and Sconberg Parkway. The project also includes a new two-lane drop-off and pick-up area in front of Bardin Elementary School. The project started construction in spring 2021 and is expected to be completed in fall 2022.

Existing Conditions 48

BORONDA ROAD CONGESTION

RELIEF PROJECT
The City of Salinas is planning a project to widen
East Boronda Road and install bicycle lanes and a
landscaped median. The project also includes four
roundabouts at the intersections of Boronda Road
with McKinnon Street, El Dorado Drive, Natividad
Road, and Independence Boulevard. These projects
include protected-intersection treatments and highvisibility crosswalks and are intended to increase safety for people walking and biking to McKinnon
Elementary School and Everett Alvarez High School.

This project is in the design and permitting phase,
with construction anticipated in the next few years.

DOWNTOWN COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT
The City of Salinas received federal and local grant funding to redesign the West Alisal Street and Lincoln Street corridors in downtown Salinas. The West Alisal Street phase of the project included a reduction in vehicle lanes from four to two, buffered bicycle lanes, high-visibility crosswalks, and signal improvements. This project provides an improved route for people walking and biking to Roosevelt Elementary, Washington Middle School, and Salinas High School. Construction started in 2020 and finished in spring 2021.

The second phase of the project is planned for Lincoln Street and will include buffered bicycle lanes and high-visibility crosswalks on this key route to Salinas High School.

Construction is planned for Lincoln Street in summer 2022.

EAST LAUREL DRIVE AND CONSTITUTION BOULEVARD

SIDEWALK AND NATIVIDAD TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
This project was initiated by community members who saw a need for pedestrian improvements on East Laurel Drive near the soccer fields. The project includes new sidewalks, bike paths, lighting, and crosswalk enhancements on East Laurel Drive, and new sidewalk and curb ramps on Constitution Boulevard. This project started construction in spring 2021 and completed construction in fall 2021.

Existing Conditions 49

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT
The City of Salinas received state grant funding for
improvements to existing uncontrolled crossings:

Sanborn Road at Buckhorn Drive, Natividad Road
at Pacheco Street, West Laurel Drive at Parkside
Street, Wood Street at Santa Maria Street, and
Iverson Street at Lang Street. These crossings
provide access to Oscar Loya Elementary, Kamman
Elementary, Sherwood Elementary, and Washington
Middle School. Improvements will include highvisibility striping, signage, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons. This project is expected to start
construction in winter 2022.

WILLIAMS ROAD RESURFACING AND PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON
The City of Salinas is planning to repave Williams Road, which is a route to Alisal High School and Alisal Community School. The project will add buffered bicycle lanes on Williams Road, bicycle-conflict markings, high-visibility crosswalks, and a loading zone in front of Alisal High. This project is planned to start construction in 2023.

The uncontrolled crosswalk across from the Alisal High football field is planned to be removed until a pedestrian hybrid beacon can be installed in late 2023. Pedestrian hybrid beacons are overhead beacons that flash red when pedestrians are crossing and signal drivers to stop. This treatment will increase the safety of students crossing at the current crosswalk location.

Existing Conditions 50

VISION ZERO INTEGRATED INTO MAINTENANCE
(VZIM) PROGRAM
Vision Zero Integrated into Maintenance (VZIM) is one of the most cost-effective ways the City can invest in traffic safety. Vision Zero is a multidisciplinary approach to eliminating severe and fatal collisions, but an often-overlooked program with a substantial opportunity to make incremental safety improvements in the City’s pavement maintenance program. What is the difference between the City’s capital improvement program (CIP) and its maintenance program? Reconstructing roads often involves moving flow lines, upgrading drainage systems, rebuilding sidewalks, relocating utilities, and planting trees, all of which are very expensive. Resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation projects are typically regularly planned maintenance projects initiated on the basis of current or anticipated pavement conditions. Maintenance funds are already programmed, and additional striping changes have only a nominal cost to the City. Because of the low additional cost, VZIM is one of the most cost-effective approaches to improving traffic safety.

When a resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation project is planned, the City is given a blank canvas to determine how best to restripe the roadway. This is an opportunity to implement desired traffic-safety improvements, reduce crash frequency and severity, and improve traffic operations. Recent improvements have included road diets with buffered bike lanes on the following streets:
• John Street between Wood Street and East Alisal Street • East Rossi Street between Main Street and Sherwood Drive • Madrid Street between Northridge Mall and Main Street • West Alisal Street between Front Street and Blanco Road Other recent projects have installed narrower lanes and added buffered bike lanes on Blanco Road between San Vincente Avenue and Main Street, and on Constitution Boulevard between East Laurel Drive and East Boronda Road.

Existing Conditions 51

EXISTING PROGRAMS
The City of Salinas offers programs for residents seeking sidewalk repair or traffic calming in their neighborhoods. In addition, a variety of program offerings provide activetransportation education and encouragement to Salinas residents. Some programs are focused on school-aged youths, but there are also programs offering safety information, encouragement, and events for the general public.

CITY PROGRAMS
City Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
The City of Salinas has an adopted the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to address concerns about traffic speeds and other safety issues on Salinas residential streets. The program is driven by neighbors and requires that the residents themselves support the traffic calming plan. It requires a petition from the community to begin the process and support of at least 50% of neighbors for the proposed changes. Learn more here: https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/public-works/current-projects/ traffic-calming
City Sidewalk Repair Program
Homeowners in the City of Salinas, like those in many communities in California, are responsible for maintaining the sidewalk fronting their property. Some funding is available from the City for a 50/50 sidewalk repair program, in which the City will pay half the cost of curb, gutter, and sidewalk repair, up to a maximum of $2,500. The City also allocates maintenance funds for sidewalk repair through its capital improvement program and pursues funding for sidewalk repair through other sources. Public Works staff members respond to maintenance requests in the order that services are requested.

There is currently a nineteen-year backlog for sidewalk repairs. Learn more here:
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/public-works/pw-maintenance-services/ document-lists/sidewalk-repair
Existing Conditions 52

EDUCATION AND ENCOURAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Bicycle Secure Program
The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) provides free racks for bicycle and skateboard parking, bike lockers, and bicycle repair stands to businesses, organizations, and schools throughout Monterey County. The goal of the program is to increase the amount of secure bicycle parking and ensure that it is distributed equitably throughout the county. Interested businesses and others can apply for funding to purchase a rack at any time here:
https://www.tamcmonterey.org/bicycle-secure-program.

Bike Smart and Walk Smart
The Bike Smart and Walk Smart programs, led by Ecology Action, provide on-the-ground training in safe walking and bicycling to second- and fifth-grade students, with the goal of empowering students and parents to walk and bike and to reduce collisions. Learn more here:
https://ecoact.org/about-us/community-engagement/youth-programs Blue Zones Project Monterey County
Blue Zones Project is a national organization that works with communities to encourage changes that lead to healthier options for residents. Blue Zones works with governments, employers, restaurants, and school sites to encourage healthy eating, exercise, and community building. Blue Zones was launched in Monterey County in 2019 and works with schools throughout Salinas to encourage healthy habits. Learn more here:
https://info.bluezonesproject.com/montereycounty
Ciclovía Salinas
Ciclovía Salinas is an annual event held on East Alisal Street that creates space for walking and biking, connecting with community and local organizations, and supporting local businesses. Ciclovía events began in Bogotá, Colombia, and have spread around the world. Ciclovía Salinas is the only fully youth-led Ciclovía event and is currently in its ninth year. Learn more here: https://cicloviasalinas.org/ Existing Conditions 53
Go 831
Go831 is a free transportation-demand management program led by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County. The program is offered countywide and provides resources and incentives for commute trips made by biking, walking, carpooling, vanpooling, or public transit. Go831 also provides resources for employers who want to start incentive programs to reduce drive-alone commute trips. Learn more here: http://www.go831.org/ Measure X Safe Routes to Schools Program
Local sales tax Measure X, which was approved by Monterey County voters in 2016, includes $20 million for Safe Routes to Schools projects and programs through 2040. The Transportation Agency for Monterey County has developed a comprehensive Safe Routes to Schools program that offers tools, programming, and resources to schools, guardians, and communities aimed at improving safety and traffic around schools. Learn more here:
https://saferoutesmonterey.org/

OUTREACH
Outreach 55
Public input was the foundation of the process of creating the Safe Routes to Schools Plan. The planning team developed an outreach plan and sought input from community members to accomplish the following outreach goals:
• Adapt outreach strategies during covid-19: Outreach for this plan took place in fall 2020 and spring 2021, during the covid-19 pandemic. The planning team shifted its outreach strategies away from in-person outreach to virtual parent meetings and online surveys.
• Understand school transportation needs and barriers: Parent and student surveys, presentations at parent meetings, and walking audits with school staff all contributed input on the barriers to walking and biking to schools in Salinas and the types of improvements that community members would like to see. This helped the planning team understand the key issues around each school site and the gaps in the biking and walking networks.
• Refine draft recommendations: Maps of the draft recommendations for each school site were sent out to parents along with a short survey asking for their feedback.

Each school was also offered a presentation opportunity at an already-planned parent meeting to share the draft recommendations and hear feedback from parents and school staff. Finally, the planning team hosted two temporary demonstration projects to test the draft recommendations and get feedback from the community.

This feedback was used to adjust the draft recommendations and add new recommendations for locations that were brought up by community members. • Collect representative community input: All outreach materials were provided in English and Spanish, and most parent presentations were given in Spanish. The planning team worked closely with school staff to reach parent communities and provide opportunities for input.

Outreach 56

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach was originally planned to start in spring 2020 and to focus on in-person community meetings. That strategy was adjusted due to the covid-19 pandemic to focus on presentations at virtual parent meetings and digital parent surveys. Walking audits were held at each school site to review current infrastructure conditions and discuss safety issues with school staff. Finally, the planning team hosted two temporary demonstration projects to test the draft recommendations and get feedback from the community.

WALKING AUDITS
Walking audits were held at each of the 45 schools in fall 2020 and spring 2021. Typically, audits are held during school drop-off or pick-up to observe traffic conditions. This was not possible because school was happening remotely due to covid-19, so instead the planning team met with school staff to observe infrastructure conditions around the school and discuss key safety issues. School principals, community liaisons, and crossing guards shared information on typical traffic patterns and safety issues for people walking and biking. These meetings were held outside, and covid-19 protocols were maintained to ensure participants’ safety.

Outreach 57

PARENT MEETINGS
At the beginning of the planning process, the
team contacted school staff to request time on
the agendas of pre-scheduled virtual parent
meetings, such as coffee klatches, site councils, and
the English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC).

During the presentations, staff members shared
information about the planning process and asked
parents and school staff for input on any safety
issues or challenges with biking and walking around
the school. After the draft recommendation list was
developed, another round of presentations at virtual
parent meetings was conducted to get feedback
on the draft recommendations. In total, 140 virtual
presentations were given to all 45 schools.

PARENT AND STUDENT SURVEYS
An initial survey was shared with parents through
school communication channels, the project
website, and on social media and received 2,425
responses. The survey asked about how students
typically traveled to school before covid, top
concerns about letting students walk or bike to
school, and current barriers to traveling to school
safely. A similar survey was sent to high school
students, and 474 responses were received. After
the draft recommendation list was developed,
recommendations maps in English and Spanish
were shared with parents along with a short
survey asking for their feedback. 1,341 responses
were received with feedback on the draft
recommendations.

TEMPORARY INSTALLATIONS
After the draft recommendations were developed,
the planning team selected two locations
for temporary installation projects. These
installations were designed to test the draft project
recommendations, see how the designs worked in
practice, and get feedback from the community on
whether they should be made permanent. The first
installation took place on East Alisal Street near
Sherwood Elementary from October 14 to October
25, 2021, and the second took place on McKinnon
Street and Westminster Drive near Harden Middle
School from April 20 to May 18, 2022.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

OUTREACH SUMMARY
140

PRESENTATIONS

RESPONSES
2,425

DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
2

17 474

RESPONSES
1,341

RESPONSES
35,000+

PARENTS REACHED

Outreach 59

TEMPORARY INSTALLATION

SURVEY RESULTS
Highlights of the community survey data for the East Alisal Street and McKinnon Street installation projects are provided below. The full survey data can be found in Appendix B.

East Alisal Street
The temporary installation on East Alisal Street was located between Griffin Street and North Hebbron Avenue, a section that connects nearby residents with Sherwood Elementary School. East Alisal Street is one of the top streets for pedestrian and bicycle collisions in Salinas, with 25 pedestrian and 16 bicycle collisions between 2010 and 2019.

East Alisal Street was also identified as a priority during the planning process for the Alisal Vibrancy Plan, which was developed with extensive community input starting in 2017.

The design of the temporary installation was based on a concept plan from the Alisal Vibrancy Plan.

At the time of the installation, there were no bicycle facilities along this section of East Alisal Street. The speed limit was 30 mph, but public comments indicated that drivers frequently travelled faster. The temporary installation included a Class IIB buffered bike lane on one side of the street and a Class IV separated bikeway on the other. The Class IV bikeway was separated from motor vehicles by construction barrels, wave delineators, and decorative planters that were painted by Los Padres Elementary students. To create space for bicycle facilities, the road was narrowed from two travel lanes in each direction to one, with a center turn lane. Green conflict markings were installed at intersections to alert drivers when they crossed bike lanes. The installation also included high-visibility crosswalks at the intersections of East Alisal Street at South Wood Street and Hebbron Avenue, which were installed permanently by the City.

Outreach 60
The East Alisal installation ended early and was in place for less than two weeks before it was damaged by heavy rain. The planning team received 114 community survey responses during the East Alisal Street installation. The following methods were used to promote the project and collect survey responses:
• Distribution of fliers and a survey link through Sherwood Elementary, Los Padres Elementary, and El Sausal Middle School.
• Community ribbon-cutting event, which had approximately 30 attendees. • Door-to-door distribution of fliers with the survey link to neighborhood businesses. • Mass mailings to nearly 5,000 households in the neighborhoods around the demonstration.
• Social media posts.
• Pre-stamped surveys placed along the installation route.

Outreach 61
Figure 6. East Alisal Street Installation Survey Data
Would you like to see the temporary improvements
made permanent?
Figure 7. East Alisal Street Installation Survey Data
How likely would you be to walk or bike through
this area if the changes became permanent?
4%
59%
3%
33%
Yes
Maybe - with some changes
Undecided
No
26%
35%
26%
12%
Definitely
Likely
Not at all likely
Not likely
Survey Results
• Nearly 40% of survey respondents
walked through the installation,
and 74% experienced the
installation in a car. Twelve percent
of respondents bicycled through
the installation.
• More than two-thirds of
respondents reported having
a positive experience with the
high-visibility crosswalks, and
approximately half had a positive
experience with the buffered bike
lane and separated bikeway.
• Just over half of respondents
said that they walked or biked
more because of the temporary
installation.
• Nearly 60% indicated that they
would like to see the temporary
changes made permanent
• 61% said that they would either
definitely or probably use the new
facility if it became permanent.

Outreach 62
East Alisal Street: Next Steps
Before implementing any changes to roadway design, the City of Salinas will conduct additional planning for the East Alisal Street corridor, including additional community outreach. In spring of 2022, the City received grant funding for improvements on East Alisal Street, including litter abatement, new street trees and landscaping, wayfinding signage, public art, sidewalk art to highlight safe routes through the neighborhood, and community education programming. Improvements are expected to be implemented in 2023.

Outreach 63
McKinnon Street and Westminster Drive
McKinnon Street and Westminster Drive were selected as the second installation location to test out concepts that were being considered for a possible grant application.

McKinnon Street and Westminster Drive provide routes to Harden Middle School, North Salinas High, and McKinnon Elementary, and to McKinnon Park and El Dorado Park.

At the time of the installation, McKinnon Street was a two-lane roadway with sidewalks and Class II bicycle lanes. The speed limit was 35 mph, but public comments indicated that drivers frequently travelled faster. Westminster Drive was a two-lane residential street with on-street parking on both sides. For the temporary installation on McKinnon Street, the bike lanes on both sides were upgraded to Class IV separated bikeways, which have barriers between the motor vehicle lanes and the bicycle lanes. The temporary installation also included green conflict markings at intersections and driveways along McKinnon Street, and curb extensions and high-visibility crosswalks at two intersections along Westminster Drive.

Outreach 64
The McKinnon Street installation was in place for a month, and the planning team received 251 community survey
responses. The following methods were used to promote the project and collect survey responses:
• Distribution of fliers and survey links through Harden Middle School, North Salinas High, and Natividad
Elementary.
• Mailer distribution with the survey link to approximately 2,700 households in the neighborhoods around the
demonstration.
• Virtual community meeting to explain the purpose of the demonstration, what to expect, and how to give input.
• Social media campaign.
• Pre-stamped surveys placed along the installation route. • In-person outreach to parents and students around
Harden Middle School.

Outreach 65
9%
60% 11%
20%
Yes
Maybe - with some changes
Undecided
No
26%
37%
18%
18%
Definitely
Likely
Not at all likely
Not likely
Figure 8. McKinnon Street Installation Survey Data
Would you like to see the temporary improvements
made permanent?
Figure 9. McKinnon Street Installation Survey Data
How likely would you be to walk or bike through this
area if the changes became permanent?
Survey Results
Two-thirds of survey respondents drove through the installation, 41% walked, and 22% bicycled. • Nearly 70% of respondents had a positive response to both the high-visibility crosswalks and the separated bikeways, saying either “I love it” or “I like it” to those temporary changes.
• Just under half of respondents said that they walked or biked more because of the temporary installation.
• 60% indicated that they would like to see the temporary changes made permanent. • 64% said that they would either definitely or probably use the new facility if it became permanent.

Outreach 66
McKinnon Street: Next Steps
McKinnon Street is scheduled for resurfacing in the next few years, and the City of Salinas plans to implement striping changes during that project, including buffered bicycle lanes and high-visibility crosswalks. Because of the positive response to the temporary demonstration, the City has also applied for grant funding to install Class IV separated bikeways on McKinnon Street and a multi-use path on Harden Parkway.

CITYWIDE

INFRASTRUCTURE

PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATIONS

Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 68
This chapter contains recommendations that affect multiple schools in the City of Salinas.

These include recommendations for new biking and walking facilities, and programmatic recommendations that address education, encouragement, engagement, equity, and maintenance. The maps in this chapter show the network of citywide routes that are recommended for future improvements to this plan and streets that serve as key routes to school, which have been identified as Safe Routes to Schools corridors.

I CAN
walk or bike
to school
safely.

I KNOW
that my trip to school
helps our environment,
builds healthy habits, and
saves my family money.

I HAVE
the skills and confidence
I need to travel to school
safely without using a car.

I AM
more connected to my
neighborhood and
community through my
trip to school.

VISION

Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 70
• Objective 1.3: Transportation Agency for
Monterey County (TAMC), schools, and the
City will support events that encourage active
transportation to school, such as “Walk & Roll to
School,” at least twice each year.
• Objective 1.4: Work with schools and Safe
Routes to Schools partners to provide walking
school buses at all elementary schools.
• Objective 1.5: Work with schools and Safe
Routes to Schools partners to promote Safe
Routes to Schools corridors as the preferred
routes to school.

Goal 2. Safety: Zero collisions involving bikes
or pedestrians that result in injury or death
• Objective 2.1: Prioritize Safe Routes to
Schools projects that address fatal and severeinjury crashes. • Objective 2.2: Enhance low-stress route
alternatives to high-stress corridors.
• Objective 2.3: Prioritize safety over travel
delays, speed, congestion, and convenience in
project design.
• Objective 2.4: Crossing guards will be present at
all elementary schools.

Goal 3. Education: All children in Salinas will
receive traffic safety education
• Objective 3.1: Incorporate bicycle and
pedestrian safety education into the curriculum
in all elementary schools.
• Objective 3.2: By second grade, all children will
receive pedestrian safety training in school; by
fifth grade, all children will receive bike safety
training in school.
• Objective 3.3: By high school, students will
know the basics of bike maintenance and have
opportunities to practice these skills at school or
in the community.

One example would be a diversion program that
requires school zone traffic offenders to assist
with crossing guard duties (Austin, TX
program model).
• Objective 4.3: Recruit volunteers from the
community to assist with Safe Routes to Schools
programs such as walking school buses and
crossing guards.

An example would be participation in a Safe
Routes to Schools steering committee.
• Objective 5.3: Provide access to active
transportation and safety equipment such as
bicycles, scooters, helmets, and lights.

Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 71
ENCOURAGEMENT:

The majority of children
will arrive at school by
foot, bicycle, scooter,
skateboard, bus, or
carpool
1 SAFETY:

Zero collisions involving
bikes or pedestrians that
result in injury or death
2 EDUCATION:

All children in Salinas
will receive traic
safety education
3 ENGAGEMENT:

Engage the greater
community to create
safe environments
around schools
4 EQUITY:

Ensure all community
members have equitable
access to schools and
Safe Routes to Schools
programming
5 PLAN GOALS
STOP

SCHOOL ZONE
Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 72

RECOMMENDATIONS PROCESS
The recommendations in this Safe Routes to Schools Plan were developed in response to public input on the barriers to getting to each school site safely. Public comments from parent surveys, parent meetings, and walking audits were reviewed and, where feasible, recommendations were developed to address the issue. This process included the evaluation of existing conditions around each school and incorporated the best practices in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure design.

After the draft recommendations were developed, recommendation maps in English and Spanish were shared with each school site along with a short survey asking for feedback.

Each school was also offered another round of bilingual parent presentations to share the draft recommendations and collect feedback from parents and school staff. The planning team reviewed the feedback on the draft recommendations and adjusted the recommendations where feasible.

All recommendations are planning-level and require further analysis prior to construction.

CITYWIDE CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The map on page 75 shows existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities along with recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian corridor improvements throughout the City of Salinas. A description of each facility type can be found below.

BIKE BOULEVARD
Streets with traffic speed and volume management,
designed to create low-stress conditions. In ideal
conditions, cyclists share the road with motor vehicles.

Bike boulevards manage speeds and volumes using
traffic-calming features like diverters, medians,
chicanes, and traffic circles. Bike boulevards are usually marked by signs and “sharrows” and may include
branding and wayfinding signs to local destinations
and other low-stress routes.

Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 73

CLASS I SHARED-USE PATH
Paved rights-of-way that are completely separated
from streets where motor vehicle traffic is prohibited.

Shared-use paths are designed for people who
are using wheelchairs, walking, bicycling, or
skateboarding, or taking other forms of active
transportation. Bike paths should offer opportunities
not provided by the road system, such as recreational
opportunities or direct high-speed commute routes if
cross-flow by motor vehicles and pedestrian conflicts
can be minimized. The most common applications for
shared-use paths are along waterfronts, canals, utility rights-of-way, abandoned railroad rights-of-way, within school campuses, and within and between parks.

There may also be situations in which such facilities
can be provided as part of planned developments.

CLASS II BICYCLE LANE
On-street facilities that use striping and stencils to
designate space for bicycle travel. Bike lanes are
intended to delineate the right-of-way assigned to
bicyclists and motorists and to provide for more
predictable movements by each user. A more
important reason for constructing bike lanes is to
better accommodate bicyclists through corridors
where there is not sufficient room for side-by-side
sharing of streets by motorists and bicyclists. This can be accomplished by reducing the number of lanes,
reducing lane width, or prohibiting or reconfiguring
parking to delineate bike lanes. In addition, other
things can be done on streets with bike lanes to
improve the situation for bicyclists that might not
be possible on all streets (e.g., improvements to the
surface, augmented sweeping programs, special signal
facilities). In general, pavement markings alone will not measurably improve bicycling conditions.

Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 74

CLASS IV CYCLE TRACK
Class IV facilities are protected bike facilities designated for the exclusive use of bicyclists. Cycle tracks are bike facilities separated from motor vehicle traffic by a physical barrier and are distinct from sidewalk and pedestrian areas. Cycle tracks may be one-way or two-way, and may be at street level, at sidewalk level, or at an intermediate level. If at sidewalk level, a curb or median separates them from motor vehicle traffic, and different pavement colors or textures separate them from the sidewalk. If at street level, they can be separated from motor vehicle traffic by raised curbs or barriers. By separating cyclists from motor vehicle traffic, cycle tracks can offer greater security than bike lanes and are attractive to a wider spectrum of the public. However, cycle tracks can constrain the bikeway and limit the ability of bicyclists to pass each other.

Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 75
SANTA

RITA ST
W

CURTIS ST

E ROMIE LN

N FIRST ST

GARNER AVE

VICTOR ST
LARKIN
ST

COLLEGE
DR

CLAY ST

HOMESTEAD AVE
LOS

OLIVOS DR
BUCKH
D
ORN
R

RIKER ST
MADRID
ST

CAMBR IAN DR

UNIVERSITY
AVE

CORNWALL
ST

SWANER AVE

VAN BUREN AV E

SAN MIGUEL AVE

CENTRAL AVE
PAJARO
ST

E LAUREL
DR

CHAPARRAL ST

CALIFORNIA
ST

SAN JUAN GRADE RD

W ACACIA ST

AMBROSE
DR

E LAUREL DR TULANE
ST

RIDER AVE

RUSSELL RD

LINCOLN
AVE

BARDIN RD

W LAUREL DR

CHE ROKEE
DR

GEIL ST

EUCALYPTUS
DR

CONSTITU
BLV
TION D
EL

DORADO DR

N SANBORN RD

MCKINNON ST

W ALVIN DR
PASEO
GRANDE

E BOLIVAR
ST

IVER S ON ST
KELTON
DR

NATIVIDAD RD
N MAIN
ST

E ALISAL ST

CHESTNUT
ST

FREEDOM PKWY

SCONBERG
PKWY
TOWT
ST
TYLER
ST

NANTUCKET BLVD

INDEPENDENCE BLVD
LAS

CASI TAS DR

WILLIAMS RD

N DAVIS RD

WESTRIDGE
PKWY

SHERWOOD DR

HARDEN PKWY

E BORONDA RD
CANAL

LAKE TRAIL
CARR

CARR LAKE TRAIL
ALISAL
CREEK

ROGGE RD

SAFE ROUTES TO

Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 77
SANTA

RITA ST

W CURTIS ST

E ROMIE LN

N FIRST ST
FONTES
LN

GARNER AVE

VICTOR ST

LARKIN ST

COLLEGE
DR

CLAY ST

MONTE BEL LA
BLVD

HOMESTEAD AVE

WESTRIDGE
PKWY
LOS

OLIVOS DR
ROCHEX
AVE

WESTMINSTER
DR
BUCKH
D
ORN
R
COUGAR
DR
W

ALISAL ST

RIKER ST

KITTERY
ST

DEL MONTE AVE

CAMBRIAN
DR

SAN VINCENTE
AVE
MODOC
AVE

UNIVERSITY
AVE

CORNWALL
ST

SWANER AVE
VAN

BUREN AVE

S WOOD ST
MARYAL
DR

LINWOOD DR

SAN MIGUEL AVE

CENTRAL AVE

CAPITOL ST

PALMA DR
PAJARO
ST

E LAUREL
DR

CHAPARRAL ST

CALIFORNIA
ST

ARCADIA WAY

TOWT ST

SAN JUAN GRADE RD

TUSCANY BLVD

W ACACIA ST

AMBROSE
DR

E LAUREL DR
REATA
ST
TULANE
ST

RIDER AVE

W LAUREL DR
E

MARKET ST

CHEROKEE
DR
E

CURTIS ST

RUSSELL RD

LINCOLN
AVE

BARDIN RD
RO
RICO G
SSI

REENWAY

CONSTITUTION
BLVD
EL

DORADO DR

N SANBORN RD

MCKINNON ST

E ALISAL ST

W ALVIN DR
PASEO
GRANDE

E BOLIVAR
ST

FREEDOM PKWY

E ALVIN DR

IVERSON
ST
KIP
DR

WILLIAMS RD

CHESTNUT
ST

ROGGE RD
SAUSAL
DR

HARDEN PKWY

NI DEPENDENCE BLVD
TYLER
ST

NANTUCKET BLVD
LAS

CASI T AS DR

N DAVIS RD

JOHN ST

SHERWOOD DR

E BORONDA RD
CANAL

NATIVIDAD RD

LAKE TRAIL
CARR

CARR LAKE TRAIL
ALISAL
CREEK

POLICY AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations below are for all school sites and are arranged by implementing agency and type of program. Some recommendations are listed under multiple organizations that could take the lead on implementation.

TRANSPORTATION AGENCY FOR

MONTEREY COUNTY (TAMC)
Education
• Support the Street Smarts traffic-safety
education campaign, including information on
how to use new infrastructure like roundabouts,
Class IV separated bikeways, and pedestrian
hybrid beacons.
• Install traffic gardens at elementary
schools and parks to provide space for traffic
safety education.
• Promote the TAMC program that allows citizens
to report sidewalk and bicycle facility hazards on
Salinas roadways.

Encouragement
• Work with schools to develop SchoolPool
carpooling programs, with incentives for
participation such as priority parking spaces and
drop-off lanes.
• Develop a bar-code scanner program that
notifies parents when students arrive at school.
• Develop a pilot program to structure school
drop-off times and locations by grade level and
align it with education programs.
• Promote the TAMC Safe Routes website (https://
saferoutesmonterey.org/) as a community
resource for establishing walking school buses,
finding safety information, etc.
• Continue to provide bike and skateboard racks
to schools through the Bicycle Secure program.

Equity
• Design and implement public outreach and
engagement that is broadly accessible and
provides means for all to participate.
• Provide an equitable share of transportation
investments to underserved, racially diverse
communities to improve their health, safety, and
quality of life.

Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 79

SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Education
• Incorporate traffic safety education into
school curriculums.
• Partner with TAMC and other Safe Routes
to Schools partners to provide bicycle and
pedestrian safety education and training at
every elementary school.

Encouragement
• Adopt a district-wide policy supporting active
transportation projects and programs.
• Establish a Safe Routes to Schools contact at
the district level to act as the point person for
education, programs, and events.
• Provide orientation for principals and school
staff on Safe Routes to Schools programs and
best practices, including traffic management.
• Where a bus stop for one school is near another
school, relocate the bus stop or adjust pick-up
times to reduce school congestion.
• Promote events that encourage active
transportation, such as Walk and Bike to
School Day.
• Use the TAMC Bicycle Secure program to provide
secure bike, scooter, and skateboard parking at
each school site.
• Consider the use of electric school buses.

Engagement
• Reassess crossing guard funding and recruiting
structures to allow at least one crossing guard
per school for both morning drop-off and
afternoon pick-up times, or develop a
volunteer crossing guard program to recruit and
motivate volunteers.

CITY OF SALINAS: POLICE,

RECREATION AND COMMUNITY

SERVICES, AND PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENTS
Education
• Train police officers to teach traffic safety, with
a focus on driver safety, and accurately report
collisions involving bicyclists or pedestrians.
• Incorporate bike/walk safety trainings or helmet
giveaways into Recreation and Community
Services Department messaging, after-school
programs, and events.
• Promote the Salinas Connect app and website,
which allows citizens to report sidewalk and
bicycle facility hazards on city roadways.

Encouragement
• Incorporate tree planting into active
transportation projects to provide shade for
people who are walking and bicycling and
address City goals for increasing the urban
tree canopy.
• Support and promote bike and pedestrian
encouragement activities such as Bike Month,
Ciclovía, and Walk and Bike to School Day.
• Apply for Bicycle Friendly Community
designation through the League of American
Bicyclists (could involve city staff and
community volunteers).

Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 80

SCHOOL SITES
Education
• Distribute a traffic circulation plan and bike and
pedestrian safety information to parents at the
beginning of the school year through all possible
communication channels (email, handouts,
parent meetings, back to school nights, etc.).
• Hold school safety assemblies for students at
the beginning of the school year to go over safe
walking, biking, and drop-off practices.
• Pass out bike maps, resource lists, and bike cage
information to students every fall, and conduct
annual bike safety clinics.
• Incorporate active transportation into social and
emotional learning curriculums.
• Incorporate Chalk Your Walk programs into
arts curriculums.
• Develop a curriculum for teaching students
about the climate impacts of transportation,
transportation infrastructure, and the
built environment.
• For high school students, promote bus routes
for school transportation, develop carpool
incentive programs, and offer bike maintenance
courses through a Regional Occupation Center
(ROP) program.
• For high school students, expand health
leadership groups to include active
transportation issues, such as student bike/
pedestrian counts, active transportation projects,
and Safe Routes to Schools support for
younger students.
• Provide information to school staff about activetransportation and carpooling options, including electric bikes.

Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 81
Encouragement
• Incorporate active transportation and support for Walk and Bike to School Day into existing school health policies.
• Designate an administrative staff member as the Safe Routes to Schools contact at each school.
• Work to achieve Blue Zones Project school certification. • Host biannual Walk and Bike to School Day events.
• Develop walking and rolling school bus programs with incentives for participation.
• Develop SchoolPool carpooling programs with incentives for participation, including priority parking spaces and drop-off lanes. • Establish and encourage use of Park and Walk/Ride locations. • Promote and incentivize middle- and high-school bike clubs, mountain bike clubs, and skateboard clubs.
• Promote and incentivize family walking and biking groups to encourage more eyes on the street, potentially through existing parent groups.
• Stagger school start times between grade levels to disperse drop-off traffic.
• Stagger school start times for schools within two blocks of each other. • Adjust school delivery times to avoid drop-off periods. • Develop partnerships with arts programs to install public art along routes to schools.
• Add active-transportation information to school staff signatures. • Pursue grant funding through the Specialized Outride program to bring bikes and bike education to middle schools.

Engagement
• When possible, have school staff or volunteers help with traffic control in school parking lots for 15 minutes before and after school. • Pursue the AAA School Safety Patrol program to engage students in transportation safety (Monterey Park Elementary is a model). • Non-Profits and Monterey County Health Department
Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 82

NON-PROFITS AND MONTEREY

COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Education
• Develop an annual crossing guard
training program.
• Develop programs and events to provide parents
and guardians with traffic safety education, such
as the following:
▪ Community traffic safety education events
on weekends.
▪ Traffic safety messaging at established parent
meetings and events, such as back-to-school
nights and spring open houses.
▪ Locate traffic-safety education staff members
at schools to talk to parents during drop-off.
▪ Work with parent leaders to develop parentdriven programs. ▪ Provide training and tips on using the school
drop-off loop.
• Provide driver safety training targeting youths
and seniors. Consider partnering with the
Salinas Police Department or insurance
companies to provide discounts
for participation.
• Provide bike and pedestrian safety training
during after-school programs, such as the YMCA
and the Boys and Girls Club.
• Provide pedestrian safety education and
training for second graders, including classroom
education and on-blacktop or neighborhood
walking instruction.
• Provide bicycle safety education and training
for fifth graders, including classroom education
and on-bike safety rodeos taught by certified
safety instructors.
• Develop a vertical education program with
specific safety messaging for every grade level.
• Develop programs or events to provide familyfocused bike- and walk-safety trainings. • Pass out bike maps, resource lists, and bike cage
information to students every fall, and conduct
annual bike safety clinics. Work with Family
Resource Centers to offer bike and pedestrian
education and support.
• Develop a curriculum for teaching students
about the climate impacts of transportation,
transportation infrastructure, and the built
environment.
• For high school students, promote bus routes for
school transportation, develop carpool incentive
programs, and offer bike maintenance courses
through an ROP program.
• For high school students, expand health
leadership groups to include active
transportation issues, such as student bike/
pedestrian counts, active transportation
projects, and Safe Routes to Schools support for
younger students.
• Support the Street Smarts traffic safety
education campaign, including information on
how to use new infrastructure like roundabouts
and sharrows.
• Promote the City program that allows citizens to
report sidewalk hazards.

Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 83
Encouragement
• Provide orientation for principals and school
staff on Safe Routes to Schools programs and
best practices.
• Develop year-round walking or rolling school
bus programs with incentives
for participation.
• Develop a walking/rolling school bus
toolkit and training presentation for
parent volunteers.
• Develop SchoolPool carpooling programs,
with incentives for participation such as
priority parking spaces and drop-off lanes.
• Develop a social media campaign focused on
students and school staff to encourage more
biking and walking.
• Consider a program to provide free bus
passes to students.
• Offer middle- and high-school bike clubs,
mountain bike clubs, scooter clubs, and
skateboard clubs.
• Coordinate family walking and biking groups
to encourage more eyes on the street.
• Develop and promote earn-a-bike or bikeloan programs in which students earn a bike by riding frequently or maintaining perfect
attendance. Explore partnerships with
the Salinas Police Department to provide
abandoned bikes to students.
• Organize helmet giveaway events for
students and families.
• Develop programs to install public art along
routes to schools.
• Consider a neighborhood grant program
to support programs such as walking
school buses.

Equity
• Include members of disadvantaged
communities as stakeholders, and
consider language accessibility in program
development. Emphasize the relationship
between health and active transportation in
all program messaging.
• Provide bilingual materials and staff for
all programs.
• Conduct an audit of past policies that have
limited access to safe transportation options,
and propose new policies to address
these inequities.

Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 84

MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT (MST)
Encouragement
• Consider a program to provide free bus passes to students. • Expand bus routes to serve middle and high schools that are not currently served by MST, including Rancho San Juan High School, Gutierrez Middle School, Gavilan View Middle School, and Mount Toro High School.

Citywide Infrastructure and Program Recommendations 85

MAINTENANCE

RECOMMENDATIONS
Maintenance is a continual challenge for the City of Salinas, and there is currently insufficient funding to maintain all streets, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities to the level desired by staff and community members. This plan recommends pursuing additional funding for roadway maintenance to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the city are safe and accessible. See Chapter 6 for current maintenance funding sources.

Any complete streets improvements built on Caltrans rights-of-way should be maintained by the State of California.

SCHOOL PROFILES
School Profiles 87
The school-level infrastructure recommendations
listed in this chapter are the core of the Safe Routes
to Schools Plan. They were designed to address
the specific challenges at each school site, with the
goal of increasing the safety of families walking and
biking and encouraging more active-transportation
trips to school. This chapter includes information on
the current conditions at each school, observations
from the walking audit, and the list of infrastructure
recommendations. Schools are organized
alphabetically. School-specific non-infrastructure
recommendations are also listed under each
school’s profile. Citywide non-infrastructure
recommendations are listed in Chapter 4.

A guide to the various types of infrastructure
treatments included in this chapter starts on
page 88.

RECOMMENDATIONS

PROCESS
The recommendations in this Safe Routes to Schools
Plan were developed in response to public input
on the barriers to getting to each school site safely.

Public comments from parent surveys, parent
meetings, and walking audits were reviewed and,
where feasible, recommendations were developed
to address the reported issues. This process
included an evaluation of the existing conditions
around each school and incorporated the
best practices in bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure design.

After the draft recommendations were developed,
recommendation maps in English and Spanish
were shared with each school site along with a
short survey asking for feedback. Each school was
also offered another round of bilingual parent
presentations to share the draft recommendations
and collect feedback from parents and school staff.

The planning team reviewed the feedback on the
draft recommendations and adjusted them
where feasible.

All recommendations are planning-level and
require further analysis before construction. All
recommendations of new marked traffic-control
devices, including crosswalks, require further
analysis and must meet the guidelines of the
California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
and City of Salinas policies in order to be installed.

All traffic-calming recommendations in this plan are
subject to the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program, which addresses concerns about traffic
speeds and other safety issues on Salinas residential
streets. This program is driven by neighbors and
requires that the residents themselves support the
traffic-calming plan. It requires a petition from the
community to begin the process and support from
at least 50% of neighbors for the proposed changes.

City staff prioritizes streets with higher traffic speeds and volumes.

There are several recommendations in this plan for
new curb markings to create loading zones near
schools. The City has an established program and
procedure available for new special curb markings,
and schools can begin the process by submitting
an application to the City. The cost of installing
and maintaining special curb markings is paid by
the applicant. There is a fee for the application
and an annual renewal fee to refresh the markings.

All curb markings require Transportation and
Traffic Commission and city council approval to be
legitimate and enforceable.

School Profiles 88

GUIDE TO BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN

INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Bicycle boulevards are streets
with low traffic volumes and
speeds where full bike lanes are
not feasible and cyclists share the
road with motor vehicles. Bike
boulevards are usually marked by
signs and shared-use pavement
markings, or “sharrows,” and
include traffic-calming measures
like diverters, medians, chicanes,
and traffic circles.

Class I shared-use paths are
paved rights-of-way, completely
separated from streets, which
support multi-use recreation and
transportation opportunities for
walkers, bicyclists, skaters, and
wheelchair users.

Bike lane conflict markings are
used to highlight “conflict zones,”
or places where traffic lanes
and bike lanes cross. This helps
drivers know where to expect
people on bikes.

Class II bike lanes are on-street
bicycle facilities that use striping
and stencils to designate space
for bicycle travel.

Center medians provide space to
locate pedestrian safety features,
traffic-control devices, amenities,
and landscaping, and they can
provide traffic calming.

Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes
include a striped buffer between
the bike lane and the vehicle lane,
which provides greater separation
and comfort for people biking.

School Profiles 89
Class III bicycle routes are
designated for bicycle travel with
signage and shared-use pavement
markings, or “sharrows,” and are
shared with motor vehicles.

High-visibility crosswalks,
or “ladder style” crosswalks,
are more visible to drivers than
crosswalks consisting of just
two lines.

Class IV separated bikeways or
cycle tracks include a physical
barrier such as parked cars,
planters, or plastic posts between
the bicycle lane and the vehicle
lane, providing separation and
safety for cyclists.

Leading pedestrian intervals
allow pedestrians to start crossing
an intersection a few seconds
before cars are given a green
light, making them more visible to
drivers who are making a left turn.

Curb extensions are installed
at intersections or mid-block
crosswalks to shorten the crossing
distance for people walking and
make them more visible to people
driving.

Pedestrian countdown signal
heads allow pedestrians to
see how many seconds remain
before the light changes and
whether there is enough time to
cross safely.

Pedestrian refuge islands are
protected spaces in the center
of a crosswalk that reduce the
pedestrians’ crossing distance and
exposure to vehicle traffic.

Protected pedestrian signal
phases are traffic signals that
direct people walking to cross at
different times from drivers who
are making left turns.

Pedestrian hybrid beacons are
lights used to control traffic at
unsignalized locations to help
pedestrians cross the street. They
are often used on larger roadways
with three or more lanes.

Source:
pedbikeimages.org, Mike Cynecki
School Profiles 90
Rectangular rapid flashing
beacons (RRFBs) are used at
uncontrolled intersections or midblock crosswalks to alert drivers to people who are waiting to cross
the street.

Roundabouts are circular
intersections where drivers travel
counterclockwise around a center
island. They have been shown
to reduce crashes and improve
safety for people walking.

Raised crosswalks are higher
sections of pavement with
marked crosswalks. They are used
to encourage drivers to slow down
and to make people walking more
visible to drivers.

Shared-lane markings (“sharrows”) are used on
streets where bicycles and motor vehicles share
the same travel lane. Sharrows direct bicyclists to
the safest position in the roadway, alert drivers that
bicyclists may be sharing the lane, and encourage
safe passing of bicyclists by motorists.

Traffic calming consists of various measures, such
as speed humps, traffic circles, and chicanes, used
to slow vehicle traffic on residential streets and
improve safety and conditions for walkers and
cyclists. Traffic-calming measures must be requested
and supported by neighborhood residents in order
to be installed.

Speed feedback signs are a traffic-control device
used to reduce vehicle speeds by giving drivers who
are traveling over the posted or advisory speed a
targeted message, such as “YOUR SPEED XX” or
“SLOW DOWN.”
Traffic circles are small roundabouts installed on
neighborhood streets to slow traffic and create a
safer and more comfortable environment for people
walking and biking.

Source: City of Capitola
Source: City of Capitola
School Profiles 91

ALISAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL
Alisal Community School is located in East Salinas,
adjacent to Alisal High School, and draws students
primarily from the surrounding neighborhoods (see
map on the following page).

PARENT SURVEY
Alisal Community School parents were asked to
complete a bilingual survey about their attitudes
toward walking and biking to school in March 2021,
and 107 surveys were received. The full survey report
is in Appendix B.

The survey asked parents to select the most important
factors in whether they allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top issues for parents are listed in Figure 10, below.

Figure 10. Parents’ top concerns about letting
children walk or bike to and from school.

Cars parked at intersections make it harder to see
people walking

GRADE LEVELS
K-6

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
697

STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS

92.4%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
83%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
(BASED ON 107 SURVEY RESPONSES)
60%

MY CHILD

ALREADY

WALKED OR

BIKED TO/FROM
SCHOOL

CROSSING
GUARDS

ADULTS TO

WALK OR BIKE
WITH

DISTANCE

SPEED OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE

SAFETY OF

INTERSECTIONS
AND

CROSSINGS

AMOUNT OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE
9%
9%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
School Profiles 92
Data Source: City of Salinas Open Data Portal, Alisal Union School District,Transportation Agency for Monterey County Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Legend
Students
Alisal Community SchoolPublic LibrariesCommunity Centers ParksSalinas Boundary
Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
1 ≥ 2 miles: 12 students1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 101 students≤ 1/2 miles: 480 students School Profiles 93

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• At the time of the audit, Alisal Community
School had a small drop-off loop off Del Monte
Avenue and a parking lot off Williams Road.

Parking spaces in the lot were reserved for staff.

The school had plans to develop a larger dropoff loop off Del Monte Avenue. • At the time of the audit, drop-off took place
in the employee parking lot, which was not
intended for drop-off traffic. As a result, there
was severe congestion before and after school.

Drop-off will move in the future to Del Monte
Avenue.
• School bus drop-off takes place on Del Monte
Avenue.
• Williams Road is a major arterial street, part of
the city’s truck route network, and a primary
emergency response route. There is traffic
congestion on Williams Road before and after
school.
• Some of the drop-offs occur on-street along Del
Monte Avenue and Williams Road.
• The area in front of this school is designated as
a reduced school speed limit zone, established
to reduce speed limits in school zones. These
zones are typically 100–500 ft from the school
boundary and have either 15-mph or 25-mph
speed limits.

Parents expressed concerns about the intersection of Williams Rd and Del Monte Ave School Profiles 94
Pedestrian Conditions
• There are complete sidewalks on both sides of
Del Monte Avenue and Williams Road.
• The intersection of Del Monte Avenue and
Williams Road is signalized and has standard
striped crosswalks.
• There are no marked crosswalks across Del
Monte Avenue between Williams Road and Towt
Street.

Bicycling Conditions
• There are Class II bike lanes on both sides of
Williams Road. There are no bicycle facilities
on Del Monte Avenue or other neighborhood
streets.

The intersection of Del Monte Ave and Towt St is used by large numbers of pedestrians and drivers School Profiles 95

RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND ALISAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL The following table lists recommendations for Alisal Community School, and the map below shows their locations in relation to the school.

School Profiles 96
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
AC001 Williams Rd at Del
Monte Ave
Large numbers of
vehicles and pedestrians
at intersection. Parents
do not feel safe crossing.

Install yellow high-visibility
crosswalks per planned redesign
of Williams Rd. Implement lead
pedestrian interval, and install
pedestrian countdown signal
heads.
$218,140 City
AC002
Del Monte Ave
from Williams Rd
to Towt St
Reports of speeding.

Install traffic calming (chicanes
and removal of parking at those
locations), sharrow markings, and
bike route signage.
$652,800 City
AC003 Del Monte Ave at
Towt St
High pedestrian volumes
traveling to multiple
schools.

Upgrade crosswalks to highvisibility, construct curb
extensions with ramps.
$268,000 City
AC004
Del Monte Ave
from Williams Rd
to Towt St
Additional school
signage needed.

Install additional school zone
signage assembly A. $3,400 City
AC005
Del Monte Ave
between Williams
Rd and Burke St
Students crossing
outside of marked
crosswalks.

Consider pedestrian crossing
enhancements per city policy. $10,000 City
AC007 Del Monte Ave at
Dallas Ave
Low pedestrian visibility
at side streets.

Install high-visibility yellow
crosswalk across Dallas Ave. $4,000 City
AC008 Del Monte Ave at
New Deal Ave
Low pedestrian visibility
at side streets.

Install high-visibility yellow
crosswalk across New Deal Ave. $4,000 City
AC009 Del Monte Ave at
Burke St
Low pedestrian visibility
at side streets.

Install high-visibility yellow
crosswalk across Burke St. $4,000 City
AC010
Del Monte Ave
from Williams Rd
to Towt St
Low pedestrian visibility
at side streets.

Perform intersection sight
distance analysis and consider
installation of red curb at
intersections.
$700 City
AC011 Towt St at Cortez
St
Low pedestrian visibility
at side streets.

Install high-visibility crosswalk
and curb extension across Cortez
St.
$204,000 City
AC012
Dallas Ave from
Del Monte Ave to
Cortez St
Key pedestrian route
to school, reports of
speeding.

Install traffic calming if requested
and supported by neighborhood
residents.
$157,800 City
AC013
New Deal Ave
from Del Monte
Ave to Cortez St
Key pedestrian route
to school, reports of
speeding.

Install traffic calming if requested
and supported by neighborhood
residents.
$157,800 City
School Profiles 97

ALISAL HIGH SCHOOL
Alisal High is located in east Salinas and draws most of its students from the surrounding neighborhoods (see
map on the following page).

PARENT SURVEY
Alisal High parents were asked to complete a bilingual
survey about their attitudes toward walking and
biking to school in March 2021, and 74 surveys were
received. The full survey report is in Appendix B.

The survey asked parents to select the most important
factors in whether they allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top issues for parents are listed in Figure 11, below.

Figure 11. Parents’ top concerns about letting
children walk or bike to and from school.

GRADE LEVELS
9-12

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
2838

STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS
82%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
80%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
(BASED ON 74 SURVEY RESPONSES)
51%
Students walking currently share space with cars in
the eastern entrance to campus

VIOLENCE OR
CRIME

WEATHER OR

CLIMATE

AMOUNT OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE

SAFETY OF

INTERSECTIONS

AND CROSSINGS

DISTANCE
9%
8%
8%
8%

MY CHILD

ALREADY

WALKED OR

BIKED TO/FROM
SCHOOL
8%
8%
School Profiles 98
SalinasSafe Routesto School Plan
Adams S t
Rossi-Rico
Parkway
Pueblo Dr
Cherokee Dr
Osage Dr
Navajo Dr
Chaparral St
Harden Pkwy
McKinnon S t
E Alvin Dr
Adams S t
N 1st S t
N Main S t
El Camino Real Harden Ranch Plaza
Heald
College-Salinas
Main Canal
Tyler S t
Rainier Dr
Iris Dr
Noice Dr
Rico S t
Boeing Ave
Crescent Way
Linwood Dr
Hyde S t
Polk S t
Chaparral S t
Navajo Dr
Monroe St
Tapadero S t
Reata S t
Rosarita Dr
Larkin S t
Tulane St
Lupin Dr
Parkside St
Granada Ave
St Francis Way
Loma Dr
W L
aurel Dr
N Main S t
Sherwood Dr
E Laurel Dr
El Camino Real Sherwood Park
Main Canal
Martella S t
Clay S t
Griffin S t
Winham St
W Rossi St
Rianda S t
Rico S t
Riker S t
Central
Ave
California S t
Harvest S t
Auburn S t
Main St
Pajaro S t
W Lake S t
Bridge St
Lincoln Ave
Sun St
W San Luis S t
Work St
E Market S t
W Market S t
N Main S t
Front St
Salinas St S Main S t
Sherwood Dr
John St
W Alisal S t
Monterey St
Exposition
Grounds
Amtrak-Salinas
Salinas
Geil S t
W Acacia S t San Marcos Dr
Lang S t
Pajaro S t
W R
E Acacia S t
omie Ln
California St
Maple S t
Carmel Ave
E Romie Ln
Grove St
Harvest S t
Sierra Dr
Hawthorne S t
Oak St
Orange Dr
San Angelo Dr
Willow St
Chestnut S t
S Main St S Main St
Abbot t St
E Blanco Rd
S Main St
Claremont
Manor
Neighborhood
Park
Salinas Valley
Memorial
Hospital
Emerald Dr
Arcadia Way
Calaveras Dr
Coventry St
Glendora Way
Inglewood S t
Pescadero Dr
Independence Blvd
Victoria Ave
Los Coches Ave
Cambrian Dr
Sut ter St
Klamath Dr
E Alvin Dr
Humboldt Dr
Natividad Rd Natividad Rd E Boronda Rd El Dorado Community Park Gabilan Creek
Natividad
Creek
Ramona Ave
Tampico Ave Rainier Dr
Marin Ave
Trazado Ave
Constitution Blvd
Natividad Rd
Chinese Garden
Cemetery The First Tee of
Monterey
County
Constitution
Soccer Fields
Natividad
Medical Center
Ali sal Creek
Oregon S t
Fremont St
Eucalyptus Dr
Towt S t
Roosevelt S t
N Hebbron Ave
S t Edwards Ave
Kings S t
Kern S t
Kern S t
Fir st Ave
Acosta Plz
Meadow Dr
N Pearl S t
S Filice St John St
E Market S t
N Sanborn Rd E Laurel Dr
S Sanborn Rd
E Alisal S t
El Camino Real
Cesar E Chavez
Community Park
Alisal Creek
101
101
Merrill S t
Airport Blvd
Schilling Pl
Vertin Ave
Work St
Blanco Cir
Terven Ave
Johnson Pl
Growers St
Brunken Ave
Harkins Rd
Abbot t St
S Sanborn Rd
El Camino Real
Ioof Cemetery
Spreckels
Junction
Natividad Creek
Gabilan Creek
Bradbury St Nantucket Blvd
E Boronda Rd
Creekbridge
Neighborhood
Park
Steinbeck
Neighborhood
Park
Pacific Ave
Antigua Ave
Atlantic S t
Eagle Dr
Rider Ave
N Sanborn Rd
Alamo Way
Beacon Hill Dr
Towt S t
Garner Ave
Las Casitas Dr
E Boronda Rd
Sunrise S t
N Sanborn Rd
N Sanborn Rd
Freedom Pkwy
Natividad Creek
Park
Sycamore Rd
Del Monte Ave
Second Ave
Margaret S t
Toro Ave Skyway Blvd
First Ave
Cross Ave
Kimmel S t
Paloma Ave
Green S t
Mae Ave
Monte Bella Blvd
Dallas Ave
Bardin Rd
E Alisal S t
E Laurel Dr Williams Rd
Williams Rd
Alisal Rd
Closter Park
Alisal
Alisal Creek
Mof fet t St
Airport Blvd
Skyway Blvd
Salinas
Fairways Golf
Course
Hartnell
College-Alisal
Campus
Salinas
Municipal
Airport
Old Stage Rd
Old S tage Rd
Williams Rd Williams Rd
Old S tage Rd
Williams Ranch
Park
Palermo Dr
Freedom Pkwy
Sconberg Pkwy
Alisal Rd Alisal Rd
Willia ms Rd
Alisal Creek
Alisal Creek
Williams Rd
Old Stage Rd
Alisal Creek
Old S tage Rd
Alisal Creek
Zabala Rd
Alisal Creek
Foothill Dr
Old S tage Rd
Zabala Rd
Old S tage Rd
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Students
Alisal High School
Public LibrariesCommunity CentersParksSalinas Boundary
Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
≤ 1/2 miles: 1010 students
1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 1259 students1 ≥ 2 miles: 606 students
School Profiles 99

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• Alisal High is located on Williams Road, a fivelane roadway with parking on both sides.

Williams Road is a major arterial street and is
very congested before and after school.
• There is a drop-off area and parking lot on
the school campus. There is a parking lot on
the west side of campus that is reserved for
staff. Left turns are permitted out of the school
parking lot.
• The morning sun creates visibility problems for
eastbound traffic at certain times of the year.
• Bus drop-off takes place on school campus, in
the long drop-off area between the two parking
lots.
• As of the writing of this plan, the speed limit in
front of the school is 35 miles per hour.

Pedestrian Conditions
• There are sidewalks on both sides of Williams
Road near the school.
• There are standard yellow crosswalks across
two legs of the intersection of Williams Road and
Monte Bella Boulevard.
• There is a standard yellow mid-block crosswalk
on Williams Road near the school’s football field.
• There are no marked crosswalks on Freedom
Parkway between Sanborn Road and Williams
Road.
• There are curb ramps in place at intersections
surrounding the school.
• There is a pedestrian pathway to the school
campus from Camarillo Court, and another path
connecting Tecopa Way to Williams Road near
the entrance to campus.
• The back entrance to campus, off Camarillo
Court, has lots of traffic before and after
school from both Alisal High and Cesar Chavez
Elementary.

Bicycling Conditions
• There are Class II bike lanes on Williams Road
near the school and on Freedom Boulevard.

Freedom Parkway is a four-lane roadway that some students cross to get to school School Profiles 100 RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND ALISAL HIGH SCHOOL The following table lists recommendations for Alisal High, and the map below shows their locations in relation to the school.

School Profiles 101
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
AH001
Williams Rd
from Del Monte
Ave to Freedom
Parkway
High traffic volumes and
speeds.

Install planned Class IIB buffered
bike lanes on Williams Rd
between Freedom and Bardin.

Allow for loading and unloading
only, and restrict long-term
parking on Williams Rd in front of
Alisal High. Install raised median
with street trees between Del
Monte Ave and Monte Bella Blvd.

Replace missing street trees.
$513,380 City
AH002 Williams Rd at Del
Monte Ave
Large numbers of
vehicles and pedestrians
at intersection. Parents
do not feel safe crossing.

Install yellow high-visibility
crosswalks per redesign of
Williams Rd. Implement lead
pedestrian interval, and install
pedestrian countdown signal
heads.
$218,140 City
AH003 Williams Rd at
Monte Bella Blvd
Large numbers of
vehicles and pedestrians
at intersection.

Restricting left turns
removes conflict point.

Upgrade existing crosswalks with
high-visibility yellow crosswalk.

Continue to restrict left turns into
the high school at Monte Bella
Blvd from Williams Rd.
$14,000 City
AH004
Williams Rd at
existing midblock crosswalk
Collision history in
crosswalk.

Enhance crosswalk with
pedestrian hybrid beacon and
pedestrian refuge island. Note:

Crosswalk markings should
be removed until the planned
enhancements are installed and
operational.
$800,000 City
AH005
Williams Rd
at Freedom
Parkway
Large numbers of
vehicles and pedestrians
at intersection. Reports
of drivers not respecting
pedestrians.

Conduct intersection control
evaluation analysis to study
installation of roundabout.

Upgrade to yellow high-visibility
crosswalks.
$60,000 City
AH006
Williams Rd
at Freedom
Parkway
Drivers may not know
they’re in a school zone
until they are very close
to campus.

Install additional school zone
signage assembly A. $1,700 City
AH007
Freedom
Parkway from
Constitution Blvd
to Williams Rd
Large four-lane roadway
with low traffic volume.

Student was hit crossing
at Torona Way and
Cougar Drive.

Upgrade existing Class II bike lane
to buffered bike lanes. Evaluate
for potential reduction in the
number of lanes, Class IV cycle
track, and pedestrian crossing
locations.
$426,740 City
AH008 Freedom Parkway
at Williams Rd
Transition across right
turn lane is challenging
for people on bikes.

Install bike-lane conflict striping
across right turn lane transition,
and conflict striping across
the intersection to match the
receiving buffered bike lane.
$18,000 City
School Profiles 102
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
AH009
Burke St/back
entrance to
school
Entrance is not currently
ADA accessible.

Improve lighting and connection
from Burke to make it ADA
accessible.
$39,000 School
AH011 Freedom Parkway
at Estrella Way
Students walking to
Alisal High and La Paz
Middle
Install high-visibility crosswalk,
and construct curb extensions
with curb ramps across Estrella.
$130,000 City
AH012 School parking
lot
No dedicated space for
students to walk into
campus from the east.

Construct formal pedestrian
pathway through eastern
driveway into campus. Consider
removing parking spaces next to
portables, and repurpose space
for pedestrian path.
$10,000 School
AH013 School parking
lot
Difficult for drivers to
leave the school parking
lot, conflicts with
pedestrians crossing.

Consider creating a new rightturn-only lane from the school parking lot and closing driveway
access at Monte Bella Blvd to
reduce conflicts with students
crossing. Evaluate Williams Rd
crosswalk location and signal
operations with any changes to
lane configurations. Direct dropoff to school campus.
$11,700 School
AH014 Camarillo Court
at Moreno Dr
Traffic from both Alisal
High and Cesar Chavez
Elementary
Add bike route signage, sharrow
striping, and traffic calming if
requested and supported by
neighborhood residents.
$550,800 City
AH015
Gaviota Dr from
Paseo Grande to
Tecopa Way
Key drop-off location,
reports of speeding.

Install traffic calming if requested
and supported by neighborhood
residents.
$214,200 City
AH016 Camarillo Court
at back entrance
Low visibility for students
walking after dark.

Add pedestrian-scale lighting to
improve back entrance to school. $83,200 School
School Profiles 103

BARDIN ELEMENTARY
Bardin Elementary is located at the eastern edge of
Salinas. Most Bardin students live in the surrounding
neighborhoods (see map on the following page).

PARENT SURVEY
Bardin parents were asked to complete a bilingual
survey about their attitudes toward walking and
biking to school in March 2021, and 75 surveys were
received. The full survey report is in Appendix B.

The survey asked parents to select the most important
factors in whether they allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top issues for parents are listed in Figure 12, below.

Figure 12. Parents’ top concerns about letting
children walk or bike to and from school.

The project includes a new drop-off lane in front of
the school.

GRADE LEVELS
K-6

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
675

STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS

82.2%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
79%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
(BASED ON 75 SURVEY RESPONSES)
33 CROSSING %
GUARDS

CONVENIENCE

OF DRIVING

AMOUNT OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE

ADULTS TO

WALK OR BIKE
WITH

DISTANCE
10%
8%
8%
8%

MY CHILD

ALREADY

WALKED OR

BIKED TO/FROM
SCHOOL
8%
8%
School Profiles 104
Data Source: City of Salinas Open Data Portal, Alisal Union School District,Transportation Agency for Monterey County Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Legend
Students
Bardin SchoolPublic LibrariesCommunity Centers
ParksSalinas Boundary
Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
1 ≥ 2 miles: 65 students1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 307 students≤ 1/2 miles: 228 students School Profiles 105

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• At the time of the audit, Bardin Elementary had
one small drop-off loop at the front of campus
off Bardin Road and a side entrance through the
school parking lot.
• Drivers have been observed coming southbound
on Bardin Road and making U-turns past the
median at the intersection of Bardin Road and
East Alisal Street to get back on northbound
Bardin Road and enter the school drop-off loop.
• Drivers have been observed parking along
Bardin Road and dropping students off at the
curb.
• As of the writing of this plan, the speed limit in
front of the school is 35 miles per hour.

Pedestrian Conditions
• A complete sidewalk is in place on the northeast
side of Bardin Road, adjacent to the school
campus.
• There is no sidewalk or pedestrian facility on the
southwest side of Bardin Road directly across
the street from campus.
• The intersection of Bardin Road and East
Alisal Street is a minor-street stop-controlled
T-intersection. A project is currently in
construction to replace the intersection with a
roundabout.
• At the time of the audit, there was one faded
standard crosswalk on the north leg of the
Bardin Road/East Alisal Street intersection,
which led directly to the front of school.
• There are several pedestrian gates into campus,
including one at Bardin Road and another
through the school’s main parking lot.

Bicycling Conditions
• At the time of the audit, there were no bicycle
facilities on Bardin Road. The project currently
in construction includes buffered bike lanes
on Bardin Road, which are included in the
recommendation table and map below.
• At the time of the audit, there were Class II
bicycle lanes on East Alisal Street near the
school. The current project will upgrade these to
buffered bicycle lanes.

Roundabouts are currently in construction near Bardin Elementary.

RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND
School Profiles 106 BARDIN ELEMENTARY The following table lists recommendations for Bardin, and the map below shows their locations in relation to the school.

School Profiles 107
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
BE001
Alisal Rd at
school parking
lot entrance
Conflict point
between pedestrians
and vehicles
Install high-visibility yellow crosswalk
across entrance. $4,000 School
BE002 E Alisal St at
Bardin Rd
Project currently in
construction.

Install double roundabout
configuration at intersection, and
include new striping plan and
roadway reconfiguration per Alisal
Vibrancy Plan and current Bardin SRTS
project.

Project
Funded City
BE003
E Alisal St
from Sconberg
Parkway to
Tampa St
Project currently in
construction.

Install new sidewalk on the south side
of the roadway and Class I shared-use
path between Margaret St and Bardin
Rd, per Bardin SRTS project. Long
term: Extend shared-use path from
Margaret St to Skyway Blvd.

Project
Funded City
BE004
E Alisal St from
Bardin Rd to
Skyway Blvd
Project currently in
construction.

Install buffered bike lanes, per Bardin
SRTS project.

Project
Funded City
BE005 E Alisal St at
Margaret St
Project currently in
construction.

Install high-visibility crosswalk,
curb extensions, and rectangular
rapid flashing beacon, along with
appropriate yield signage and striping.

Project
Funded City
BE006
Bardin Rd
from Sconberg
Parkway to
Williams Rd
Project currently in
construction.

Reconfigure roadway to one lane in
each direction with a center turn lane,
per Bardin SRTS project.

Project
Funded City
BE007
Bardin Rd at
school drop-off
loop
Parents parking in
drop-off loop.

Install no-parking signage to reduce
parent parking in loop. $850 School
BE008
Bardin Rd from
Alisal Rd to
Williams Rd
Project currently in
construction.

Install high-visibility crosswalk across
side streets with curb extensions and
curb ramps, per Bardin SRTS project.

Install marked crosswalks across
Bardin Rd at Toro Ave and Countryside
Drive.

Project
Funded City
BE009 Bardin Rd at
Williams Rd
Project currently in
construction.

Install high-visibility crosswalks and
upgrade curb ramps at three of the
corners. Include curb extensions
at southwest corners, and remove
dedicated right turn pocket/lane per
Bardin SRTS plan. Install conflict-area
striping for the buffered bike lane
approach to the intersection. Evaluate
intersection for lead pedestrian
interval feasibility.

Project
Funded City
School Profiles 108
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
BE010
Bardin Rd from
Alisal Rd to
Williams Rd
Project currently in
construction.

Install Class II buffered bikeway along
with accompanying striping, per
Bardin SRTS project.

Project
Funded City
BE011
Paloma Ave
from Quilla St to
Margaret St
Reports of speeding. Install traffic calming if requested and supported by neighborhood residents. $754,800 City
BE012
Paloma Ave from
Market St to Toro
Ave
Reports of speeding,
complex intersection.

Work with neighborhood residents
to develop access control plan
that includes pedestrian-safety
improvements and additional
intersection control.
$40,000 City
BE013
Sconberg
Parkway from
Alisal Rd to Monte
Bella Blvd
No bicycle connection
to Monte Bella
neighborhood.

Install Class II bike lane and signage
(extended project further with new
development).
$46,580 City
School Profiles 109

BORONDA MEADOWS ELEMENTARY
Boronda Meadows is located at the western edge
of Salinas and draws most of its students from the
surrounding neighborhoods. Many students must
cross North Davis Road to reach the school, and some
must cross Highway 101 (see map on the following
page).

PARENT SURVEY
Boronda Meadows parents were asked to complete a
bilingual survey about their attitudes toward walking
and biking to school in September 2020, and 83
surveys were received. The full survey report is in
Appendix B.

The survey asked parents to select the most important
factors in whether they allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top issues for parents are listed in Figure 13, below.

Figure 13. Parents’ top concerns about letting
children walk or bike to and from school. A Class I path is recommended on Davis Rd south of the school

GRADE LEVELS
K-6

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
756

STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS

82.1%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
83%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
(BASED ON 83 SURVEY RESPONSES)
6%

VIOLENCE OR
CRIME

SPEED OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE
10%
8%

SAFETY OF

INTERSECTIONS

AND CROSSINGS
9%

DISTANCE
10%

AMOUNT OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE
10%
School Profiles 110
Data Source: City of Salinas Open Data Portal, Salinas City Elementary School District,Transportation Agency for Monterey County Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Legend
Students
BorondaMeadowsPublic LibrariesCommunity Centers
ParksSalinas Boundary
Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
1 ≥ 2 miles: 84 students1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 458 students≤ 1/2 miles: 171 students School Profiles 111

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• Boronda Meadows is located off North Davis
Road, a four-lane arterial roadway that runs the
length of western Salinas. North Davis Road is
congested before and after school.
• There is a large, two-lane drop-off area on the
school campus. There are two parking lots on
the north side of campus that are reserved for
staff and visitors. Left turns out of the school
parking lot are allowed at the intersection of
North Davis Road and Larkin Street. There is an
additional exit from the school parking lot that
allows right turns only onto North Davis Road.
• Bus drop-off takes place in a smaller loading
area on the east side of campus.
• The area in front of this school is designated as
a reduced school speed limit zone, established
to reduce speed limits in school zones. These
zones are typically 500–100 ft from the school
boundary and have either 15-mph or 25-mph
speed limits.

Pedestrian Conditions
• There are sidewalks on both sides of Larkin
Street and North Davis Road near the school.

The sidewalk ends on the west side of North
Davis Road south of the school campus at West
Rossi Street.
• There are standard white crosswalks on all
legs of the Larkin Street and North Davis Road
intersection to the east of the school driveway
entrance. All crosswalk stripes are faded.
• There are curb ramps at the Larkin Street and
North Davis Road intersection, but they are not
updated to current ADA standards.

Bicycling Conditions
• There are Class II bicycle lanes on North Davis
Road. Bike lane striping is faded.
• There are no bicycle facilities on Larkin Street or
other residential roadways near the school.

The central intersection on the school campus is large and requires several staff to manage traffic

RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND
School Profiles 112 BORONDA MEADOWS ELEMENTARY The following table lists recommendations for Boronda Meadows, and the map below shows their locations in relation to the school.

School Profiles 113
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
BME001 School parking
lot
Large and complex
intersection requiring
several school staff
members to manage.

Consider installing a roundabout in
the school parking lot intersection. $195,000 School
BME002 N Davis Rd at
Larkin St
High traffic volumes
at intersection,
congestion before and
after school.

Conduct traffic analysis at this
intersection. Upgrade crosswalks to
yellow high-visibility.
$18,750 City
BME003 N Davis Rd Connection to
regional bike route.

Install Class I shared-use path on
west side of Davis Road to connect to
Marina/Salinas multi-modal corridor.

Consider street trees and landscaping.
$235,000 City
School Profiles 114

CARR LAKE COMMUNITY DAY SCHOOL
Carr Lake is an alternative middle and high school
located in central Salinas. The school has a small
number of students who live throughout the city
(see map on the following page).

PARENT SURVEY
Carr Lake parents were asked to complete a bilingual
survey about their attitudes toward walking and
biking to school in March 2021, but no responses
were received.

GRADE LEVELS
7-12

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
17 STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS

94.1%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
29%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
No data received
There is missing sidewalk on the north side of Sherwood Place School Profiles 115 Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan
183
San Jon Rd
Castroville Rd
Castroville Rd
Hitchcock Rd
Blanco Rd
Hitchcock Rd
Blanco Rd
Davis Rd Davis Rd
Boronda Rd
El Camino Real
183
Boronda Rd
Madison Ln
Fontes Ln
El Rancho Way
W Rossi S t
Sloat Dr
Post Dr
Cherokee Dr
Adams S t
Victor St
N Davis Rd
Larkin St
Colton Dr
Hyland Dr
N Davis Rd
El Camino Real
Rossi-Rico
Parkway
Boronda
Lemos Ave
Vil la S t
Clark S t
Fairfax Dr
Central Ave
Carmelita Dr
Homestead Ave
W Rossi St
Park St
Nacional S t
West St
A r cher S t
W Acacia S t
Via Maria
San Simeon Dr
Marion Ave
S t Ann Dr
Bruce Ave Lorimer S t
W Market S t
W Alisal S t
Castroville Rd
Davis Rd
Davis Rd
Hartnell College
Los Olivos Dr Iverson S t
Chaucer Dr
Riker S t
San Vincente Ave
Dickens Dr
Palma Dr
Kipling S t
W Acacia S t
Capistrano Dr
Hitchcock Rd
W Alisal S t
W Blanco Rd
Blanco Rd
Pueblo Dr
Cherokee Dr
Osage Dr
Navajo Dr
Chaparral S t
Harden Pkwy
McKinnon S t
E Alvin Dr
Adams St
N 1st S t
N Main S t
E Boronda Rd
El Camino Real Harden Ranch Plaza Northridge Mall
Heald
College-Salinas
Main Canal
Tyler S t
Rainier Dr
Iris Dr
Noice Dr
Rico S t
Boeing Ave
Crescent Way
Linwood Dr
Hyde S t
Polk S t
Chaparral S t
Navajo Dr
Monroe St
Tapadero S t
Reata S t
Rosarita Dr
Larkin S t
Tulane S t
Lupin Dr
Parkside S t
Granada Ave
St Francis Way
Loma Dr
W L
aurel Dr
N Main S t
Sherwood Dr
E Laurel Dr
El Camino Real Sherwood Park
Main Canal
Martella S t
Clay S t
Griffin S t
Winham St
W Rossi S t
Rianda S t
Rico S t
Riker S t Riker S t
Central
Ave
California S t
Harvest S t
Auburn St West S t
Main S t
Pajaro S t
W Lake S t
Bridge St
Lincoln Ave
Sun S t
W Sa
n Luis St
Work St
E Market S t
W Market St
N Main S t
Front St
Salinas S t S Main S t
Sherwood Dr
John St
W Alisal St
Monterey St
Exposition
Grounds
Amtrak-Salinas
Salinas
Padre Dr Geil S t
W Acacia St San Marcos Dr
Lang S t
Pajaro S t
E Acacia S t
W Romie Ln
California S t
Maple S t
Carmel Ave
E Romie Ln
Grove St
Harvest S t
Sierra Dr
Hawthorne S t
Oak S t
Orange Dr
San Angelo Dr
Willow S t
Chestnut S t
S Main S t S Main S t
Abbot t S t
E Blanco Rd
S Main St
Claremont
Manor
Neighborhood
Park
Salinas Valley
Memorial
Hospital
Emerald Dr
Arcadia Way
Calaveras Dr
Coventry St
Glendora Way
Inglewood S t
Pescadero Dr
Independence Blvd
Victoria Ave
Los Coches Ave
Cambrian Dr
Sutter S t
Klamath Dr
E Alvin Dr
Humboldt Dr
Natividad Rd Natividad Rd E Boronda Rd El Dorado Community Park Gabilan Creek
Natividad Creek
Ramona Ave
Tampico Ave Rainier Dr
Marin Ave
Trazado Ave
Constitution Blvd
Natividad Rd
Chinese Garden
Cemetery The First Tee of
Monterey
County
Constitution
Soccer Fields
Natividad
Medical Center
Ali sal Creek
Oregon S t
Fremont S t
Eucalyptus Dr
Towt S t
Roosevelt S t
N Hebbron Ave
St Edwards Ave
Kings S t
Kern S t
Kern S t
First Ave
Acosta Plz
Meadow Dr
N Pearl S t
S Filice St John S t
E Market S t
N Sanborn Rd
E Laurel Dr
S Sanborn Rd
E Alisal S t
El Camino Real
Cesar E Chavez
Community Park
Alisal Creek
101
101
Merrill S t
Airport Blvd
Schilling Pl
Vertin Ave
Work St
Blanco Cir
Terven Ave
Johnson Pl
Growers S t
Brunken Ave
Harkins Rd
Abbott St
S Sanborn Rd
El Camino Real
Ioof Cemetery
Spreckels
Junction
Natividad Creek
Gabilan Creek
Bradbury St Nantucket Blvd
E Boronda Rd
Creekbridge
Neighborhood
Park
Steinbeck
Neighborhood
Park
Pacific Ave
Antigua Ave
Atlantic S t
Eagle Dr
Rider Ave
N Sanborn Rd
Alamo Way
Beacon Hill Dr
Towt S t
Garner Ave
Las Casitas Dr
E Boronda Rd
Sunrise St
N Sanborn Rd
N Sanborn Rd
Freedom Pkwy
Natividad Creek
Park
Sycamore Rd
Del Monte Ave
Second Ave
Margaret S t
Toro Ave Skyway Blvd
First Ave
Cross Ave
Kimmel S t
Paloma Ave
Green St
Mae Ave
Monte Bella Blvd
Dallas Ave
Bardin Rd
E Alisal S t
E Laurel Dr Williams Rd
Williams Rd
Alisal Rd
Closter Park
Alisal
Alisal Creek
Mof fett S t
Airport Blvd
Skyway Blvd
Salinas
Fairways Golf
Course
Hartnell
College-Alisal
Campus
Salinas
Municipal
Airport
Old Stage Rd
Williams Rd
Williams Ranch
Park
Palermo Dr
Freedom Pkwy
Sconberg Pkwy
Alisal Rd Alisal Rd Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community StudentsCarr Lake Community Day SchoolPublic LibrariesCommunity CentersParksSalinas Boundary Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
≤ 1/2 miles: 3 students
1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 2 students1 ≥ 2 miles: 4 students
School Profiles 116

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• Carr Lake School is located on Sherwood Place,
a two-lane roadway with some parking on
both sides of the street. Sherwood Place is very
congested before and after school.
• There are several schools on Sherwood Place,
and there are multiple drop-off areas and
parking lots among their campuses. There is
a parking lot on the north side of campus that
is shared with staff and visitors. Left turns are
permitted out of the school parking lot.
• Bus drop-off takes place on the back side of
the school campus. Bus transportation is
offered only to students who live outside a
two-mile radius.
• At the time of the audit, the traffic lines
on Sherwood Drive were faded and
need repainting.
• The area in front of the school is designated as
a reduced school speed limit zone, established
to reduce speed limits in school zones. These
zones are typically 500–100 ft from the school
boundary and have either 15 mph or 25 mph
speed limits.

Pedestrian Conditions
• There are sidewalks on the south side of
Sherwood Place but none on the north side.
• There are sidewalks on both sides of the street
on Sherwood Drive between East Bernal Drive
and Highway 101. South of the highway, there is
missing sidewalk on the west side of Sherwood
Drive to Rossi Street.
• There are no high-visibility yellow crosswalks
near the school campus. There is a standard
white crosswalk on Sherwood Place near the
entrance to the Mount Toro High parking lot.
• There are curb ramps at the intersection of
Sherwood Drive and Sherwood Place.
• Some students cut through the surrounding
fields to get to campus.
• Mount Toro High is not served by a MST
bus route.

Bicycling Conditions
• There are no bicycle facilities on
Sherwood Place.
• There are buffered Class II bicycle lanes on
Sherwood Drive between Sherwood Place and
East Laurel Drive, and Class II bicycle lanes south
of the school to East Rossi Street.
• There are dashed green conflict markings on
Sherwood Drive at the intersection of
Sherwood Place.

School Profiles 117

RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND CARR LAKE COMMUNITY DAY SCHOOL The following table lists recommendations for Carr Lake, and the map below shows their locations in relation to the school.

School Profiles 118
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
CLCD001 Sherwood Pl Missing sidewalk Fill in sidewalk gaps on north side near Sherwood Dr. $60,000 City
CLCD002 Sherwood Pl Flooding during rainy
season.

Upgrade stormwater retention and
runoff reduction along Sherwood Pl. $2,000,000 City
CLCD003
Sherwood Pl at
existing midblock crosswalk
Connection to
regional bike route.

Install Class I shared-use path on
west side of Davis Road to connect
to Marina/Salinas multi-modal
corridor. Consider street trees and
landscaping.
$235,000 City
CLCD004 Sherwood Dr
MST bus blocks
traffic turning right
onto Sherwood Pl.

Relocate bus stop to north side of
Sherwood Pl to enhance visibility
at intersection, and construct
bus pullout on north side of
intersection.
$75,000 City
CLCD005
Sherwood Dr
from Bernal St
and Rossi St
Large four-lane
roadway with high
traffic volumes and
speeds.

Consolidate bike lanes to one side
of the road for a two-way cycle track
or shared-use path. Upgrade bike
lanes on Natividad between Bernal
and Boronda to Class IV separated
bikeways, and install protected
intersection treatments at Bernal to
facilitate transition to cycle track.
$12,541,180 City
CLCD006 Sherwood Dr at
Sherwood Pl
Difficult for drivers
to turn in and out of
Sherwood Pl.

Re-evaluate intersection control
evaluation analysis to study options
for intersection control.
$40,000 City
CLCD007 Behind school
Students walking
across agricultural
fields to reach the
schools.

Install trails or shared-use paths to
connect to Sherwood, Laurel Dr, and
Madeira Ave.
$2,100,000 City
CLCD008
Service roads
near canal
between Rossi
St and Main St
and Main St and
Sherwood Dr
Sherwood Dr over
Hwy 101 has high
traffic volumes and
speeds.

Create Class I shared-use path
on service roads/ROW adjacent
to canal, as identified in Urban
Greening Plan.
$1,800,000 City
CLCD009
Service road
near canal at
Main St
If a shared-use path
were installed, a
connection would be
needed across North
Main St.

Consider redesign of Casentini St/
Main St intersection to incorporate
bicycle crossing. Consider removing
parking and installing a raised
shared-use path on both sides of
Main St to connect the Class I path
to the Casentini intersection.
$305,000 City
School Profiles 119
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
CLCD010 El Puente
Campus
No marked crosswalk
for people walking to
campus.

Install high-visibility crosswalk
to connect sidewalk with front of
campus.
$4,000 City
CLCD011 Sherwood Drive
at Bernal St
Main crossing point
for people walking
from neighborhoods
northwest of school.

Install lead pedestrian interval
and conduct counts to determine
whether protected phase is needed.
$240,000 City
School Profiles 120

CESAR CHAVEZ ELEMENTARY
Chavez Elementary is located in east Salinas. The
campus is adjacent to La Paz Middle School to the
north and Soberanes Park to the east. Most of its
students live in surrounding neighborhoods (see map
on the following page).

PARENT SURVEY
Chavez parents were asked to complete a bilingual
survey about their attitudes toward walking and
biking to school in March 2021, and 49 surveys were
received back. The full survey report is in Appendix B.

The survey asked parents to select the most important
factors in whether they allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top issues for parents are listed in Figure 14, below.

Figure 14. Parents’ top concerns about letting
children walk or bike to and from school.

Bike lanes are recommended on Towt St between
Freedom Parkway and Paseo Grande

GRADE LEVELS
K-6

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
801

STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS

91.3%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
87%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
(BASED ON 49 SURVEY RESPONSES)
40%

ADULTS TO

WALK OR BIKE
WITH
8%

WEATHER OR

CLIMATE
8%

AMOUNT OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE
8%

MY CHILD

ALREADY

WALKED OR

BIKED TO/FROM
SCHOOL
9%

DISTANCE
9%

SAFETY OF

INTERSECTIONS

AND CROSSINGS
9%
School Profiles 121 Data Source: City of Salinas Open Data Portal, Alisal Union School District, Transportation Agency for Monterey County Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Legend
Students
Cesar E. Chavez ElementaryPublic LibrariesCommunity Centers ParksSalinas Boundary
Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
1 ≥ 2 miles 18 students1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 56 students≤ 1/2 miles: 642 students School Profiles 122

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• Cesar Chavez Elementary is located on Towt
Street, a two-lane collector street with low
traffic volumes.
• Most drop-off takes place in the school’s drop-off
loop adjacent to its main parking lot.
• Some drop-off also occurs on Towt Street in
front of the school.

Pedestrian Conditions
• There are complete sidewalks on both sides of
Towt Street.
• There are standard yellow crosswalks on three
legs of the intersection of Towt Street and Mae
Avenue at the west end of the school, and on all
legs of the intersection of Towt Street and Paseo
Grande in front of Soberanes Park.
• Students walking to school can enter through
the front on Towt Street or through the side
entrance off Mae Avenue.
• The south side of Towt Street directly across
from school has a wall separating it from the
residential neighborhood along Moreno Drive.

Students walking out of this neighborhood do so
using either Moreno Way or Paseo Grande.
• Towt Street and Del Monte Avenue carry school
traffic to several schools in the area. The
intersection of Towt and Del Monte is heavily
used by families walking to school.
• The area in front of this school is designated as
a reduced school speed limit zone, established
to reduce speed limits in school zones. These
zones are typically 500–100 ft from the school
boundary and have either 15 mph or 25 mph
speed limits.

Bicycling Conditions
• There are no bicycle facilities on Towt Street or
other residential roadways near the school.
• There are Class II bicycle lanes on
Freedom Parkway.

The intersection of Towt St and Moreno St is recommended for high-visibility crosswalks and curb extensions School Profiles 123

RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND CHAVEZ ELEMENTARY The following table lists recommendations for Chavez Elementary, and the map below shows their locations in relation to the school.

School Profiles 124
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
CECE001
Towt St from
Freedom
Parkway to Del
Monte Ave
No bike facilities, key
route to multiple schools
Install traffic calming if requested
and supported by neighborhood
residents.
$510,000 City
CECE002 Towt St at
Moreno St
Primary school crossing.

High volumes of
pedestrians and vehicles.

Upgrade crosswalks to highvisibility, and construct curb extensions with ramps.
$268,000 City
CECE003 Towt St at Del
Monte Ave
High volumes of
pedestrians and vehicles
traveling to multiple
schools.

Upgrade crosswalks to highvisibility, and construct curb extensions with ramps.
$268,000 City
CECE004 Towt St at Paseo
Grande
High volumes of
pedestrians and vehicles.

Upgrade crosswalks to highvisibility, and construct curb extensions with ramps.
$268,000 City
CECE005
Towt St at
Freedom
Parkway
Route for students
walking to Cesar Chavez
and Alisal High.

Construct curb extensions with
curb ramps across Towt St.

Include appropriate yield signage
and striping.
$128,850 City
CECE006
Towt St from
Freedom
Parkway to Paseo
Grande
No bike facilities, limited
demand for parking. Install Class II bike lanes. $42,240 City CECE007 Mae Ave at Del
Monte Ave
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install high-visibility crosswalks,
and construct curb extensions
across Mae Ave.
$208,000 City
CECE008 Mae Ave at C St Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install raised high-visibility
crosswalk across C St, and
construct curb ramps.
$175,000 City
CECE009 Mae Ave at D St Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install raised high-visibility
crosswalks across D St, and
construct curb ramps.
$175,000 City
CECE010 Josephine St at
D St
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Upgrade crosswalks to high
visibility, and construct curb
extensions with ramps.
$268,000 City
CECE011 Gallindo St at C St Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install high-visibility crosswalk
across C St, and construct curb
ramps.
$30,000 City
CECE012 Gallindo St at D
St
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install high-visibility crosswalk
across D St, and construct curb
ramps.
$30,000 City
School Profiles 125
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
CECE013 Josephine St at
C St
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install raised high-visibility
crosswalk across Josephine St,
and construct curb ramps.
$175,000 City
CECE014 Kilbreth Ave at
Del Monte Ave
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install high-visibility crosswalk,
and construct curb extensions
with curb ramps across Kilbreth
Ave.
$130,000 City
CECE015 Galindo St at Del
Monte Ave
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install high-visibility crosswalk,
and construct curb extensions
with curb ramps across Galindo.
$130,000 City
CECE016 School campus
Traffic in school loops
backs up through school
parking lot onto Towt St.

Implement valet program or park
and walk program N/A School
School Profiles 126

CREEKSIDE ELEMENTARY
Creekside is located in northeast Salinas and
draws students primarily from the surrounding
neighborhoods (see map on the following page).

PARENT SURVEY
Creekside parents were asked to complete a bilingual
survey about their attitudes toward walking and
biking to school in March 2021, and 63 surveys were
received. The full survey report is in Appendix B.

The survey asked parents to select the most important
factors in whether they allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top issues for parents are listed in Figure 15, below.

Figure 15. Parents’ top concerns about letting
children walk or bike to and from school.

Opening a back entrance to school is recommended
to reduce traffic on Kittery St

GRADE LEVELS
K-6

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
667

STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS

58.1%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
75%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
(BASED ON 63 SURVEY RESPONSES)
32%
10%
9%
8%
11%
12%

SAFETY OF

INTERSECTIONS

AND CROSSINGS

DISTANCE

SPEED OF

TRAFFIC ALONG
ROUTE

AMOUNT OF

TRAFFIC ALONG
ROUTE
TIME
School Profiles 127 Data Source: City of Salinas Open Data Portal, Alisal Union School District, Transportation Agency for Monterey County Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Legend
Students
Creekside ElementaryPublic LibrariesCommunity Centers
ParksSalinas Boundary
Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
1 ≥ 2 miles: 100 students1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 121 students≤ 1/2 mile: 380 students School Profiles 128

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• Creekside Elementary is located on Kittery
Street, a two-lane residential street. The
school is immediately adjacent to Creekbridge
Neighborhood Park.
• There is a drop-off loop at the front of the school
campus. Parents also drop students off in the
staff parking lot next to the drop-off loop.
• There is a bus drop-off loop on the south side of
campus off Beacon Hill Drive.
• There are speed bumps in front of the school on
Kittery Street.
• The area in front of the school is designated as
a reduced school speed limit zone, established
to reduce speed limits in school zones. These
zones are typically 100–500 ft from the school
boundary and have either 15-mph or 25-mph
speed limits.

Pedestrian Conditions
• There is continuous sidewalk on both side of
Kittery Street, Beacon Hill Drive, and other
residential roadways around the campus.
• There is a yellow high-visibility crosswalk across
Kittery Street at Crestview Street, in front of the
school. There is also a regular yellow crosswalk
across Crestview at Kittery.
• There is a crosswalk on the school campus
where the drop-off loop and staff parking lot
meet, which connects to the crosswalk across
Kittery Street.
• There are regular crosswalks across Snug Harbor
Street and Newington Street at Kittery Street,
and across two legs of the intersection of Kittery
Street and Beacon Hill Drive.
• There is a shared-use path running between
Nantucket Boulevard and Crestview Street.
• There are no marked crossings at the eastern
intersection of Beacon Hill and Constitution.

This is a route to school for many families.

There is not currently a marked crosswalk for people walking to school from the Massachusetts Dr neighborhood Bicycling Conditions
• There are no bicycle facilities on residential
roadways near the school. There are
Class II buffered bicycle lanes on
Constitution Boulevard.
• There is a shared-use path running between
Nantucket Boulevard and Crestview Street.

School Profiles 129

RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND CREEKSIDE ELEMENTARY The following table lists recommendations for Creekside Elementary, and the map below shows their locations in relation to the school.

School Profiles 130
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
CE001 Kittery St at
Crestview St
Need to update school
signage.

Install school crossing signs on
both sides of Kittery St (crossing
assembly A).
$1,700 City
CE002
Beacon Hill Dr
from Declaration
St to Kittery St
Traffic congestion on
Kittery St in front of
school.

Add loading-zone curb markings
and signage for drop-off and
pick-up (on side adjacent to the
school).
$4,100 School/City
CE003
Beacon Hill Dr
from Constitution
Blvd to
Constitution Blvd
Reports of speeding.

Install sharrow markings, signage,
and traffic calming if requested
and supported by neighborhood
residents.
$244,800 City
CE004
Beacon Hill Dr
from Constitution
Blvd to
Constitution Blvd
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Add high-visibility crosswalks to
all side streets. $112,000 City
CE005
Beacon Hill Dr
from Declaration
St to Kittery St
Reports of speeding. Add speed feedback sign. $10,700 City CE006
Fitzgerald St at
greenway path
crossing
No marked crosswalks
for greenway path.

Install raised crosswalk with
high visibility, yield signage, and
striping.
$154,700 City
CE007
Snug Harbor St
at greenway path
crossing
No marked crosswalks
for greenway path.

Install raised crosswalk with
high visibility, yield signage, and
striping.
$154,700 City
CE008 Freedom Parkway
at Williams Rd
Transition across right
turn lane is challenging
for people on bikes.

Install bike-lane conflict striping
across right turn lane transition,
and conflict striping across
the intersection to match the
receiving buffered bike lane.
$154,700 City
CE009
Newington St at
greenway path
crossing
No marked crosswalks
for greenway path.

Install raised crosswalk with
high visibility, yield signage, and
striping.
$154,700 City
CE010 Kittery St at Snug
Harbor
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Upgrade crosswalk to highvisibility, and construct curb extensions across side street.
$104,000 City
CE011 Kittery St at
Crestview St
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Upgrade crosswalk to highvisibility, and construct curb extensions across side street.
$104,000 City
CE012 Kittery St at
Newington St
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Upgrade crosswalk to highvisibility, and construct curb extensions across side street.
$104,000 City
School Profiles 131
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
CE013 Nantucket at
Declaration St
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Upgrade crosswalks to highvisibility, and construct curb extensions (where not in conflict
with bike lanes or future Class IV).
$216,000 City
CE014 Constitution Blvd
No marked crossing for
people walking to school
from Massachusetts Dr
neighborhood.

Evaluate pedestrian crossing
opportunities between
Massachusetts Dr neighborhood
and Creekbridge neighborhood.

Install conflict striping across
intersections to connect bike
lanes or future Class IV.
$22,660 City
CE015
Beacon Hill Dr
at Constitution
(west
intersection)
Large intersection,
concerns with safety,
and reports of speeding
traffic.

Install conflict striping across
intersections to connect bike
lanes or future Class IV. Install
pedestrian refuge island on
north leg. Consider for protected
intersection treatments.
$1,412,660 City
CE016
Constitution Blvd
from Boronda Rd
to Independence
Large four-lane roadway
with high traffic volumes
and speeds.

Upgrade Class II bike lane to Class
IV. $5,458,680 City
CE017
Freedom Parkway
at Constitution
Blvd
People walking from
Massachusetts Drive
neighborhood have to go
out of their way to cross
Constitution.

Install crossing on third leg of
intersection to connect to trail
that connects to Massachusetts
Drive. Add pedestrian refuge
island and conflict striping across
intersection.
$105,000 City
CE018 Constitution Blvd
at Cape Cod Way
Long crossing distance
for pedestrians.

Install high-visibility crosswalk
and curb extensions across Cape
Cod Way, and install conflict
striping for bike lane or future
Class IV.
$110,720 City
CE019
Crestview St from
Kittery St to Great
Island St
No bicycle facilities to
connect to greenway
path
Create bicycle boulevard by
installing traffic calming, sharrow
markings, and signage, and
connect to greenway path.
$244,800 City
CE020 School campus Limited bike parking on
campus.

Upgrade bike racks and bike cage
on campus $8,000 School
CE021 School campus
Traffic congestion on
Kittery St in front of
school.

Provide access to the school from
the back side of campus to let
students avoid school drop-off
traffic.
$8,500 School
CE022 Kittery St at
Fitzgerald St
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install high-visibility crosswalk
and curb extensions across
Fitzgerald. Upgrade to highvisibility crosswalk, and install curb extensions across Kittery St.
$112,000 City
School Profiles 132
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
CE024 Kittery St at
Beacon Hill Dr
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install high-visibility crosswalks
and curb extensions on three legs
of intersection.
$162,000 City
CE025
Creekbridge
Neighborhood
Park
Traffic congestion on
Kittery St in front of
school.

Install path to connect back
entrance to school with
Declaration Street.
$20,000 City
School Profiles 133
DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING ACADEMY
King Academy is located in east Salinas. The campus
is adjacent to the Alisal Union District offices and
Jesse G. Sanchez Elementary. The two schools draw
students from surrounding neighborhoods (see map
on the following page).

PARENT SURVEY
King Academy parents were asked to complete a
bilingual survey about their attitudes toward walking
and biking to school in March 2021, and 108 surveys
were received. The full survey report is in Appendix B.

The survey asked parents to select the most important
factors in whether they allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top issues for parents are listed in Figure 16, below.

Figure 16. Parents’ top concerns about letting
children walk or bike to and from school.

GRADE LEVELS
K-6

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
612

STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS

88.7%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
89%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
(BASED ON 108 SURVEY RESPONSES)
74%
9%
8%

MY CHILD

ALREADY

WALKED OR

BIKED TO/FROM
SCHOOL

SAFETY OF

INTERSECTIONS

AND CROSSINGS
8%

DISTANCE
8%

CROSSING
GUARDS
8%

AMOUNT OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE
School Profiles 134
Data Source: City of Salinas Open Data Portal, Alisal Union School District,Transportation Agency for Monterey County Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Legend
Students
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.Public LibrariesCommunity Centers ParksSalinas Boundary
Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
1 ≥ 2 miles: 11 students1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 32 students≤ 1/2 miles: 515 students School Profiles 135

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• North Sanborn Road is a major arterial street
with high traffic volumes.
• Drivers enter the drop-off loop off North
Sanborn Road and turn right for Martin Luther
King Jr. Academy or left for Sanchez Elementary.

Staff members assist with traffic flow in the
drop-off loops during school drop-off and
pick-up.
• The other entrance to the King Academy parking
lot is on Acosta Plaza. Drivers are encouraged to
exit the school parking lot here.
• There is a speed feedback sign on Sanborn Road
near Mohar Street. Parents reported issues with
speeding and drivers making U-turns around the
center medians on Sanborn Road to access the
school parking lot.
• The area in front of this school is designated as
a reduced school speed limit zone, established
to reduce speed limits in school zones. These
zones are typically 100–500 ft from the school
boundary and have either 15-mph or 25-mph
speed limits.

Families cross Garner Ave at Pacific Ave
School Profiles 136
Pedestrian Conditions
• The school has pedestrian access points from
North Sanborn Rd and Acosta Plaza.
• There is continuous sidewalk on both sides of
Sanborn Road between East Laurel Drive and
Garner Ave, and on nearby residential streets.

There is some broken sidewalk on Acosta Plaza
behind the school.
• Acosta Plaza west of the school campus is a
private road with narrow sidewalks on
both sides.
• The streets across from the school (Kimmel
Street, Alma Avenue, Montana Street, and Mohar
Street) have rolled curbs on both sides of the
street. Drivers sometimes park on the landscape
strip or sidewalk.
• There is a standard yellow crosswalk across two
legs of the signalized intersection of Sanborn
Road and Kimmel Street. There are no other
striped crosswalks on Sanborn Road between
Acosta Street and Garner Avenue.
• ADA ramps have been installed at the
intersection of Sanborn Road and
Kimmel Street.
• There is a pedestrian entrance to campus from
the parking lot on Acosta Plaza.
• The “Breadbox” Recreation Center, which is next
to the school, is another place where parents
drop off and pick up students. There have been
conflicts reported between drivers pulling into
the recreation center parking lot and pedestrians
crossing the entrance and exit driveways.
• Parents with students have been seen crossing
Sanborn Road outside of marked crosswalks
to get to school between Mohar Street and
Montana Street.
• A crossing guard is present before and after
school at Sanborn Road and Kimmel Street.

Bicycling Conditions
• There are no bicycle facilities on North Sanborn
Road or other residential streets near the school.

Class II bike lanes are recommended for Sanborn Ave
School Profiles 137
RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING ACADEMY The following table lists recommendations for King Academy, and the map below shows their locations in relation to the school.

School Profiles 138
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
MLKA001 Garner Ave at
Pacific Ave
Pedestrians crossing
Garner Ave at Pacific.

No marked crosswalk,
reports of speeding and
of drivers not yielding.

Install planned all-way stop
with high-visibility crosswalks
and nearside bus bulbouts/curb
extensions.
$119,400 City
MLKA002 Garner Ave at
Atlantic St
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install new high-visibility yellow
crosswalk across Atlantic. $4,000 City
MLKA003 Garner Ave at
Sieber St
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install new high-visibility yellow
crosswalk across Sieber St. $4,000 City
MLKA004 Garner Ave at
Sanborn Rd
Key pedestrian route
to school. Not enough
space for pedestrians at
northeast corner.

Upgrade to high-visibility yellow
crosswalk on all legs. Install curb
extension at northeast corner
to reduce crossing distance on
Garner Ave.
$66,000 City
MLKA005 Sanborn Rd at
Alma Ave
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Upgrade to high-visibility yellow
crosswalk across Alma. $4,000 City
MLKA006 Sanborn Rd at
Kimmel St
Key pedestrian crossing
to school. Students don’t
have enough time to
cross.

Optimize signal timing and
improve coordination with nearby
signals. Upgrade to high-visibility
crosswalks for both legs. Install
leading pedestrian interval and
consider protected left turn from
Sanborn to Kimmel.
$188,000 City
MLKA007 Sanborn Rd at
Montana St
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Upgrade to high-visibility yellow
crosswalk across Montana. $4,000 City
MLKA008
Sanborn Rd from
Del Monte Ave to
Laurel Dr
No bicycle facilities.

Short term: Install Class II bike
lanes between Laurel and
Del Monte. Long term: Widen
sidewalk to create shared-use
path between Laurel and Garner.

Install bike conflict markings at
recreation center entrance and
exit driveways. Install raised
median with pedestrian refuge
islands.
$1,799,520 City
MLKA009
Garner Ave from
Sanborn Rd to
end of street (to
the north)
No bicycle facilities,
reports of speeding.

Install traffic calming, sharrow
markings, and bicycle boulevard
signage.
$938,400 City
MLKA010
Acosta Plaza
from Garner Ave
back entrance to
school
Key pedestrian route to
school, broken sidewalk. Repair sidewalk. $180,000 City School Profiles 139
DR. OSCAR F. LOYA ELEMENTARY
Loya Elementary is located at the eastern edge of
Salinas next to Williams Park. Its students come
primarily from the surrounding neighborhoods (see
map on the following page).

PARENT SURVEY
Loya Elementary parents were asked to complete a
bilingual survey about their attitudes toward walking
and biking to school in March 2021, and 59 surveys
were received. The full survey report is in Appendix B.

The survey asked parents to select the most important
factors in whether they allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top issues for parents are listed in Figure 17, below.

Figure 17. Parents’ top concerns about letting
children walk or bike to and from school.

The school has had a hard time retaining crossing
guards at the intersection of Sanborn Rd and
Buckhorn Dr

GRADE LEVELS
K-6

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
716

STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS

87.1%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
78%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
(BASED ON 59 SURVEY RESPONSES)
45%
9%
8%

SPEED OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE
9%

AMOUNT OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE
8%

DISTANCE
8%

MY CHILD

ALREADY

WALKED OR

BIKED TO/FROM
SCHOOL

SAFETY OF

INTERSECTIONS

AND CROSSINGS
School Profiles 140
Data Source: City of Salinas Open Data Portal, Alisal Union School District,Transportation Agency for Monterey County Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Legend
Students
Dr. Oscar Loya SchoolPublic LibrariesCommunity Centers
ParksSalinas Boundary
Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
1 ≥ 2 miles: 79 students1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 118 students≤ 1/2 mile: 444 students School Profiles 141

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• The main entrance to Loya elementary is on
Cougar Drive. Drivers have the option of pulling
into the drop-off loop or dropping off on Cougar
Drive in front of the school.
• There is a gate at the side of the school where
the bus drop-off loop is located on Elk Drive.

There is also a back entrance to campus through
the park, from Falcon Drive.
• Badger Way and Falcon Drive are the
nearest access points in and out of this
residential neighborhood.
• The school has a small parking lot that is shared
between parents and staff. Many staff members
use on-street parking.
• The area in front of this school is designated as
a reduced school speed limit zone, established
to reduce speed limits in school zones. These
zones are typically 100 to 500 ft from the school
boundary and have either 15-mph or 25-mph
speed limits.

Pedestrian Conditions
• There are complete sidewalks on Cougar Drive,
Elk Drive, and other residential roadways near
the school.
• There are standard yellow crosswalks across two
legs of the intersection of Cougar Drive at Badger
Way in front of the school.
• There is a high-visibility crosswalk on the school
campus where the drop-off loop and the staff
parking lot meet. This crosswalk connects
pedestrians coming from the street into the
school frontage.
• There is a paved pathway on the north side of
the campus (back of the school) that connects
Falcon Drive and the school through
Williams Park.
• Many students cross Sanborn Road at Buckhorn
Drive. Sanborn Road is a five-lane roadway with
a 35-mph speed limit at Buckhorn Drive.

Bicycling Conditions
• There are no bicycle facilities on Cougar Drive,
Falcon Drive, Elk Drive, or other residential
roadways near the school.
• There are Class II bike lanes on North Sanborn
Road, East Boronda Road, Williams Road, and
Freedom Parkway, which surround the school on
four sides.

Encouraging parent drop-off on Elk Dr and Falcon Dr would help reduce traffic in front of the school

RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND
School Profiles 142 LOYA ELEMENTARY The following table lists recommendations for Loya Elementary, and the map below shows their locations in relation to the school.

School Profiles 143
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
DOLA001 Buckhorn Dr at
Bison Way
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install raised high-visibility
crosswalk and curb extension
across Bison Way.
$249,000 City
DOLA002
Buckhorn Dr
from Rider Ave to
Falcon Dr
Key route to school, no
bicycle facilities.

Install traffic calming and create
bike boulevard. $1,081,200 City
DOLA003
Buckhorn Dr from
Saguaro Dr to
Sanborn Rd
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install raised crosswalks and
high-visibility crosswalks on side
streets
$1,043,000 City
DOLA004
Cougar Dr
from Freedom
Parkway to Elk Dr
Reports of speeding.

Install traffic calming if requested
and supported by neighborhood
residents, and additional school
zone signage.
$122,400 City
DOLA005 Cougar Dr at
Badger Way
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install curb extensions to improve
crossing. $100,000 City
DOLA006 Cougar Dr at
Badger Way Updated signage needed. Install school crossing signage (assembly B). $1,700 City DOLA007 Cougar Dr at Elk
Dr
Key pedestrian route to
school. Install curb extensions across Elk. $100,000 City DOLA008 Cougar Dr at
Cougar Way
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install curb extensions across
Cougar Way. $100,000 City
DOLA009 Cougar Dr at
Raven Ct
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install curb extensions across
Raven Ct, both legs. $200,000 City
DOLA010 Elk Dr and Falcon
Dr
Traffic congestion on
Cougar Dr in front of
school during drop-off
and pick-up.

Add loading-zone signage on
Elk Drive and Falcon Drive, and
encourage drop-off on these
streets.
$850 School/City
DOLA011 Falcon Dr at
Buckhorn Dr
Back entrance to school.

Reports of speeding and
drivers doing donuts in
the intersection.

Evaluate all-way stop or consider
traffic circle. $200,000 City
DOLA012 Falcon Dr at Elk
Dr
Key pedestrian route to
school. Install curb extensions across Elk. $100,000 City School Profiles 144
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
DOLA013
Falcon Dr from
Bison Way to
Buckhorn Dr
Reports of speeding.

Install traffic calming if requested
and supported by neighborhood
residents.
$122,400 City
DOLA014 School loop on
Cougar Drive
Parents entering through
parking lot exit.

Upgrade “Do Not Enter” sign at
parking lot exit to standard sign. $850 School
DOLA015 School loop on
Cougar Dr
Traffic congestion on
Cougar Dr in front of
school during drop-off
and pick-up.

Consider working with parent
volunteers or PTA on a valet dropoff program in the main school loop. Close middle entrance/exit
to loop to shift traffic away from
main school crosswalk.
$8,500 School
DOLA016 Sanborn Rd at
Buckhorn Dr
Key pedestrian route
to school. Sanborn is a
five-lane roadway at this
intersection. Reports of
speeding and drivers not
yielding to pedestrians.

Install planned pedestrian hybrid
beacon, and upgrade to highvisibility yellow crosswalk across Buckhorn Drive.
$708,000 City
DOLA017 Sanborn Rd at
Buckhorn Dr
Difficult to find crossing
guards who are willing to
work this intersection.

Continue recruiting for crossing
guard support. N/A School
DOLA018
Sanborn Rd
from Freedom
Parkway to
Boronda Rd
Large four-lane roadway
with high traffic volumes
and speeds.

Install Class IV separate bikeway
or Class IIB buffered bike lanes
and conflict striping.
$1,665,360 City
DOLA019 Sanborn Rd at
Boronda Rd Planned city project. Install roundabout. $2,500,000 City DOLA020
Williams Rd
from Freedom
Parkway to
Boronda Rd
Large four-lane roadway
with high traffic volumes
and speeds.

Install Class II buffered bikeway
and conflict striping. Consider
upgrading to Class IV bikeway.
$1,850,400 City
School Profiles 145

DUAL IMMERSION ACADEMY OF SALINAS (DIAS)
Dual Immersion Academy of Salinas (DIAS) is located
on the western edge of Salinas and draws students
from throughout the city. Only a few live in the
surrounding neighborhoods, and most live more
than one mile from the school (see map on the
following page).

PARENT SURVEY
DIAS parents were asked to complete a bilingual
survey about their attitudes toward walking and
biking to school in September 2020, and 13 surveys
were received. The full survey report is in Appendix B.

The survey asked parents to select the most important
factors in whether they allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top issues for parents are listed in Figure 18, below.

Figure 18. Parents’ top concerns about letting
children walk or bike to and from school. Access to the pedestrian bridge over Calle Del Adobe goes through school property and is currently closed

GRADE LEVELS
K-6

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
142

STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS

55.6%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
32%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
(BASED ON 13 SURVEY RESPONSES)
8%
18%
11%
10%
10%
10%

DISTANCE

SIDEWALKS

OR PATHWAYS

SPEED OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE

AMOUNT OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE

SAFETY OF

INTERSECTIONS

AND CROSSINGS
School Profiles 146
Data Source: City of Salinas Open Data Portal, Salinas City Elementary School District,Transportation Agency for Monterey County Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Legend
Students
DIAS Boronda SchoolPublic LibrariesCommunity Centers
ParksSalinas Boundary
Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
1 ≥ 2 miles: 56 students1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 26 students≤ 1/2 miles: 20 students School Profiles 147

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• DIAS is located on Fontes Lane, a two-lane
residential roadway with no parking allowed on
either side of the street along school frontage.
• The campus is in a residential neighborhood and
is separated from the rest of Salinas by North
Davis Road and Highway 101. Calle Del Adobe is
the main route to the school.
• There is a drop-off loop in the school parking lot,
along with parking for visitors and staff.
• As of the writing of this plan, the speed limit in
front of the school is 25 miles per hour.

Pedestrian Conditions
• There is continuous sidewalk on both sides of
Fontes Lane and Addington Lane.
• Some sidewalk segments are narrow and
obstructed by mailboxes and utility posts.
• Several intersections around the school have
upgraded ADA ramps.
• The pedestrian overpass behind the school on
Calle del Adobe is closed due to vandalism.

Pedestrians have been seen crossing Calle
Del Adobe near the overpass; there are no
pedestrian crossing facilities across Calle Del
Adobe at this location.

Bicycling Conditions
• There are no bicycle facilities on Fontes Lane,
Addington Lane, Calle Del Adobe, or other
roadways surrounding the school.
• The nearest bicycle facilities are Class II bike
lanes on North Davis Road.

There are bus stops for other schools at the intersection of Fontes Ln and Addington Ln

RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND
School Profiles 148 DUAL IMMERSION ACADEMY OF SALINAS The following table lists recommendations for DIAS, and the map below shows their locations in relation to the school.

School Profiles 149
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
DIAS001 Parking lot
Drivers who want to park
contribute to congestion
in the school loop. No
pathway for pedestrians
into campus.

Restripe parking lot to allow
access to parking spaces adjacent
to the street without driving
through the loop adjacent to
the school. Establish a preferred
walking route through the parking
lot with painted walkways, quickbuild materials, or constructed sidewalk.
$104,000 School
DIAS002 Empty parcel
behind school
The school does not
want a pedestrian
overcrossing to provide
access to the campus.

Bridge is currently closed
due to vandalism.

Reconstruct fencing and establish
a path through the empty lot
to allow bridge access without
accessing school property.

Explore potential to expand staff
parking lot. Pursue easement to
allow access to Apostolic Lane if
necessary.
$24,450 County
DIAS003 Back entrance
Bridge provides access
for students who want
to cross Calle Del Adobe.

The school does not
want a pedestrian
overcrossing to provide
access to campus.

Install gate connecting school
campus to foot bridge. $8,500 School
DIAS004 Fontes/
Addington
Bus stops for Boronda
Meadows and North
Salinas High are located
here. No marked
crosswalks, buses block
visibility.

Install curb extensions and
marked crossings over Addington
Lane and Fontes Lane. Alternative
recommendation: Shift bus stops
to Calle Del Adobe.
$112,000 County
DIAS005 Fontes Lane Vegetation obstructing
sidewalk.

Work with neighboring property
owners to cut back vegetation to
remove sidewalk obstructions.
$3,800 School
DIAS006
Fontes/Nancy,
Jennifer, and
Randall
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install or update curb ramps, and
install marked crossings on side
streets.
$22,000 School
School Profiles 150

EL GABILAN ELEMENTARY
El Gabilan is located in north Salinas and draws most
of its students from the surrounding neighborhoods
(see map on the following page).

PARENT SURVEY
El Gabilan parents were asked to complete a bilingual
survey about their attitudes toward walking and
biking to school in September 2020, and 85 surveys
were received. The full survey report is in Appendix B.

The survey asked parents to select the most important
factors in whether they allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top issues for parents are listed in Figure 19, below.

Figure 19. Parents’ top concerns about letting
children walk or bike to and from school.

GRADE LEVELS
K-6

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
736

STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS

65.8%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
83%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
(BASED ON 85 SURVEY RESPONSES)
43%
11%
10%
10%

SAFETY OF

INTERSECTIONS

AND CROSSINGS

SPEED OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE

VIOLENCE OR
CRIME
9%
8%

DISTANCE

AMOUNT OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE
School Profiles 151 Data Source: City of Salinas Open Data Portal, Salinas City Elementary School District, Transportation Agency for Monterey County Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Legend
Students
El Gabilan SchoolPublic LibrariesCommunity Centers
ParksSalinas Boundary
Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
1 ≥ 2 miles: 45 students1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 128 students≤ 1/2 miles: 485 students School Profiles 152

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• El Gabilan is located on Linwood Drive, a twolane residential roadway with a center median and parking on both sides of the street.
• There are a recently upgraded drop-off loop and
a small parking lot along the school frontage.

Left turns are not allowed out of the school
drop-off loop. There is an additional parking lot
on the north side of campus that is reserved
for staff.
• Parents drop students off on the west side of
Linwood Drive, and they walk across the street
to the school campus.
• Some students travel on Laurel Drive to reach
the school campus.
• The area in front of this school is designated as
a reduced school speed limit zone, established
to reduce speed limits in school zones. These
zones are typically 100 to 500 ft from the school
boundary and have either 15-mph or 25-mph
speed limits.

Pedestrian Conditions
• There is continuous sidewalk on both sides of
Linwood Drive and other residential streets near
the school.
• There is a high-visibility yellow crosswalk across
Linwood Drive at Sequoia Street.
• At the time of the audit, there were faded white
crosswalks on two legs of the intersection of
Linwood Drive and East Laurel Drive.
• There are missing curb ramps at many
intersections surrounding the school.
• The school has placed signs in the median
discouraging pedestrians from walking over the
median and across Linwood Drive, but many
pedestrians ignore them.

Bicycling Conditions
• At the time of the audit, there were no bicycle
facilities on Linwood Drive or other residential
roadways near the school. The Linwood Drive
Safe Routes to Schools project installed buffered
bike lanes on Linwood Drive in 2021.

Buffered bike lanes and high-visibility crosswalks were recently installed on Linwood Drive School Profiles 153

RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND EL GABILAN ELEMENTARY The following table lists recommendations for El Gabilan, and the map below shows their locations in relation to the school.

School Profiles 154
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
EGE001 Linwood Dr
No bicycle facilities.

Vegetation obstructing
school signage.

Install planned buffered bike
lanes and traffic calming on
Linwood. Plant trees in the
median for street enclosure and
tree canopy. Trim vegetation
that obstructs school speed limit
signs.

Bike lanes
funded.

Remaining
cost $10,000
City
EGE002 Linwood Dr at
Sequoia St
Key pedestrian crossing
to school.

Install pedestrian refuge island
and yellow high-visibility
crosswalk across Linwood, and
high-visibility crosswalk across
Sequoia. Install school assembly
signage.
$4,850 City
EGE003
Williams Rd at
Moa Linwood Dr
at Chaparral St
nte Bella Blvd
Key pedestrian crossing
to school.

Install yellow, high-visibility
crosswalks on all four legs of
intersection, with pedestrian
refuge islands at both Linwood Dr
crossings. Install school assembly
signage.
$216,850 City
EGE004 Linwood Dr at
Rainier Dr
Key pedestrian crossing
to school.

Upgrade crosswalks to yellow
high-visibility. $16,000 City
EGE005 Linwood Dr at
Elwood St
Key pedestrian route
to school, reports of
speeding.

Install yellow, high-visibility
crosswalks on three legs of the
intersection with pedestrian
refuge island at the Linwood Dr
crossing. Install school assembly
signage.
$112,850 City
EGE006 Laurel Dr at
Linwood St
Key pedestrian route
to school. Reports of
drivers not yielding to
pedestrians.

Upgrade crosswalks to highvisibility and reconstruct
pedestrian curb ramps. Install
pedestrian refuge island at
Linwood Dr crossing. Implement
leading pedestrian interval.
$299,000 City
EGE007 Laurel Dr at
Maryal Dr
Pedestrian route to
school.

Install protected pedestrian signal
phasing $200,000 City
EGE008 West Laurel
Drive
Four-lane roadway with
higher traffic volumes
and speeds.

Install Class IIB buffered or
separated bike lanes. $17,069,940 City
EGE009 Natividad Rd
Six-lane roadway with
higher traffic volumes
and speeds.

Install separated bikeway. $19,429,200 City
EGE010 Natividad Rd at
Pacheco St
Six-lane roadway with
higher traffic volumes
and speeds. Route to
soccer complex.

Install planned crosswalk
improvements (rectangular rapid
flashing beacon and pedestrian
refuge island).
$160,000 City
School Profiles 155

EL PUENTE SCHOOL
El Puente is an alternative middle and high school
located in central Salinas. The school draws
students from throughout the city (see map on the
following page).

PARENT SURVEY
El Puente parents were asked to complete a bilingual
survey about their attitudes toward walking and
biking to school in March 2021, and 5 surveys were
received. The full survey report is in Appendix B.

The survey asked parents to select the most important
factors in whether they allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top issues for parents are listed in Figure 20, below.

Figure 20. Parents’ top concerns about letting
children walk or bike to and from school.

The existing crosswalk is recommended for highvisibility striping and curb extensions

GRADE LEVELS
7-12

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
339

STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS

67.1%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
20%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
(BASED ON 5 SURVEY RESPONSES)
40%
15%

ADULTS TO

WALK OR BIKE
WITH
10%

SPEED OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE
10%
TIME 20%
20%

DISTANCE

CROSSING
GUARDS
School Profiles 156
SalinasSafe Routesto School Plan
San Jon Rd
Castroville Rd
Castroville Rd
Hitchcock Rd
Blanco Rd
Hitchcock Rd
Blanco Rd
Davis Rd Davis Rd
Boronda Rd
El Camino Real
183
Boronda Rd
Madison Ln
Fontes Ln
El Rancho Way
W Rossi S t
Sloat Dr
Post Dr
Cherokee Dr
Adams S t
Victor St
N Davis Rd
Larkin St
Colton Dr
N Davis Rd
El Camino Real
Rossi-Rico
Parkway
Boronda
Lemos Ave
Vil la S t
Clark S t
Fairfax Dr
Central Ave
Carmelita Dr
Homestead Ave
W Rossi St
Park S t
Nacional S t
West St
A r cher S t
W Acacia S t
Via Maria
San Simeon Dr
Marion Ave
S t Ann Dr
Bruce Ave Lorimer S t
W Market S t
W Alisal S t
Castroville Rd
Davis Rd
Davis Rd
Hartnell College
Los Olivos Dr Iverson St
Chaucer Dr
Riker S t
San Vincente Ave
Dickens Dr
Palma Dr
Kipling S t
W Acacia S t
Capistrano Dr
Hitchcock Rd
W Alisal St
W Blanco Rd
Blanco Rd
Pueblo Dr
Cherokee Dr
Osage Dr
Navajo Dr
Chaparral S t
Harden Pkwy
McKinnon S t
E Alvin Dr
Adams S t
N 1st S t
N Main St
E Boronda Rd
El Camino Real Harden Ranch Plaza Northridge Mall
Heald
College-Salinas
Main Canal
Tyler S t
Rainier Dr
Iris Dr
Noice Dr
Rico S t
Boeing Ave
Crescent Way
Linwood Dr
Hyde S t
Polk S t
Chaparral S t
Navajo Dr
Monroe St
Tapadero S t
Reata S t
Rosarita Dr
Larkin S t
Tulane S t
Lupin Dr
Parkside St
Granada Ave
St Francis Way
Loma Dr
W L
aurel Dr
N Main S t
Sherwood Dr
E Laurel Dr
El Camino Real Sherwood Park
Main Canal
Martella S t
Clay St
Griffin S t
Winham St
W Rossi S t
Rianda S t
Rico S t
Riker S t Riker St
Central
Ave
California S t
Harvest S t
Auburn St West S t
Main S t
Pajaro S t
W Lake St
Bridge St
Lincoln Ave
Sun S t
W Sa
n Luis St
Work St
E Market S t
W Market S t
N Main S t
Front St
Salinas S t S Main S t
Sherwood Dr
John St
W Alisal S t
Monterey St
Exposition
Grounds
Amtrak-Salinas
Salinas
Padre Dr Geil S
W Ac
t
acia S t San Marcos Dr
Lang St
Pajaro S t
E Acacia S t
W Romie Ln
California S t
Maple S t
Carmel Ave
E Romie Ln
Grove St
Harvest S t
Sierra Dr
Hawthorne S t
Oak S t
Orange Dr
San Angelo Dr
Willow S t
Chestnut S t
S Main S t S Main S t
Abbot t S t
S Main St
Claremont
Manor
Neighborhood
Park
Salinas Valley
Memorial
Hospital
Emerald Dr
Arcadia Way
Calaveras Dr
Coventry S t
Glendora Way
Inglewood S t
Pescadero Dr
Independence Blvd
Victoria Ave
Los Coches Ave
Cambrian Dr
Sutter S t
Klamath Dr
E Alvin Dr
Humboldt Dr
Natividad Rd Natividad Rd E Boronda Rd El Dorado Community Park Gabilan Creek
Natividad
Creek
Ramona Ave
Tampico Ave Rainier Dr
Marin Ave
Trazado Ave
Constitution Blvd
Natividad Rd
Chinese Garden
Cemetery The First Tee of
Monterey
County
Constitution
Soccer Fields
Natividad
Medical Center
Ali sal Creek
Oregon St
Fremont S t
Eucalyptus Dr
Towt S t
Roosevelt S t
N Hebbron Ave
St Edwards Ave
Kings S t
Kern S t
Kern S t
Fir st Ave
Acosta Plz
Meadow Dr
N Pearl S t
S Filice St John S t
E Market S t
N Sanborn Rd
E Laurel Dr
S Sanborn Rd
E Alisal S t
El Camino Real
Cesar E Chavez
Community Park
Alisal Creek
101
101
Airport Blvd
Vertin Ave
Work S t
Terven Ave
Johnson Pl
Brunken Ave
Abbot t St
S Sanborn Rd
El Camino Real
Ioof Cemetery
Spreckels
Junction
Natividad Creek
Gabilan Creek
Bradbury St Nantucket Blvd
E Boronda Rd
Creekbridge
Neighborhood
Park
Steinbeck
Neighborhood
Park
Pacific Ave
Antigua Ave
Atlantic S t
Eagle Dr
Rider Ave
N Sanborn Rd
Alamo Way
Beacon Hill Dr
Towt S t
Garner Ave
Las Casitas Dr
E Boronda Rd
Sunrise St
N Sanborn Rd
N Sanborn Rd
Freedom Pkwy
Natividad Creek
Park
Sycamore Rd
Del Monte Ave
Second Ave
Margaret S t
Toro Ave Skyway Blvd
First Ave
Cross Ave
Kimmel St
Paloma Ave
Green S t
Mae Ave
Monte Bella Blvd
Dallas Ave
Bardin Rd
E Alisal S t
E Laurel Dr Williams Rd Williams Rd
Alisal Rd
Closter Park
Alisal
Alisal Creek Mof fet t St
Airport Blvd
Skyway Blvd
Salinas
Fairways Golf
Course
Hartnell
College-Alisal
Campus
Salinas
Municipal
Airport
Old Stage Rd
Williams Rd
Williams Ranch
Park
Palermo Dr
Freedom Pkwy
Sconberg Pkwy
Alisal Rd Alisal Rd Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community StudentsEl Puente SchoolPublic LibrariesCommunity CentersParksSalinas Boundary Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
≤ 1/2 miles: 7 students
1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 61 students1 ≥ 2 miles: 201 students
School Profiles 157

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• El Puente School is located on Sherwood Place,
a two-lane roadway with some parking on both
sides. Sherwood Place is very congested before
and after school.
• There are several schools located on Sherwood
Place, with multiple drop-off areas and parking
lots throughout their campuses. There is a
parking lot on the north side of campus that
is shared with staff and visitors. Left turns are
permitted out of the school parking lot.
• Bus drop-off takes place on the back side of the
school campus. Bus transportation is offered
only to students who live outside a two-mile
radius.
• At the time of the audit, traffic lines on
Sherwood Dr were faded and need repainting.
• The area in front of this school is designated as
a reduced school speed limit zone, established
to reduce speed limits in school zones. These
zones are typically 100 to 500 ft from the school
boundary and have either 15-mph or 25-mph
speed limits.

Pedestrian Conditions
• There are sidewalks on the south side of
Sherwood Place but none on the north side.
• There are sidewalks on both sides of Sherwood
Drive between East Bernal Drive and Highway
101. South of the highway, there is sidewalk
missing on the west side of Sherwood Drive to
Rossi Street.
• There are no high-visibility yellow crosswalks
near the school campus. There is a standard
white crosswalk on Sherwood Place near the
entrance to the Mount Toro High parking lot.
• There are curb ramps at the intersection of
Sherwood Drive and Sherwood Place.
• Some students cut through the surrounding
fields to get to campus.
• El Puente is not served by a MST bus route.

Bicycling Conditions
• There are no bicycle facilities on Sherwood
Place.
• There are buffered Class II bicycle lanes on
Sherwood Drive between Sherwood Place and
East Laurel Drive, and Class II bicycle lanes south
of the school to East Rossi Street.
• There are dashed green conflict markings on
Sherwood Drive at the intersection of Sherwood
Place.

A high-visibility crosswalk is recommended to connect the sidewalk with the school campus

RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND EL
School Profiles 158 PUENTE SCHOOL The following table lists recommendations for El Puente, and the map below shows their locations in relation to the school.

School Profiles 159
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
EP001 Sherwood Pl Missing sidewalk Fill in sidewalk gaps on north side near Sherwood Dr. $60,000 City
EP002 Sherwood Pl Flooding during rainy
season.

Upgrade stormwater retention and
runoff reduction along Sherwood Pl. $2,000,000 City
EP003
Sherwood Pl at
existing midblock crosswalk
Connection to
regional bike route.

Install Class I shared-use path on
west side of Davis Road to connect
to Marina/Salinas multi-modal
corridor. Consider street trees and
landscaping.
$235,000 City
EP004 Sherwood Dr
MST bus blocks
traffic turning right
onto Sherwood Pl.

Relocate bus stop to north side of
Sherwood Pl to enhance visibility
at intersection, and construct
bus pullout on north side of
intersection.
$75,000 City
EP005
Sherwood Dr
from Bernal St
and Rossi St
Large four-lane
roadway with high
traffic volumes and
speeds.

Consolidate bike lanes to one side
of the road for a two-way cycle track
or shared-use path. Upgrade bike
lanes on Natividad between Bernal
and Boronda to Class IV separated
bikeways, and install protected
intersection treatments at Bernal to
facilitate transition to cycle track.
$12,541,180 City
EP006 Sherwood Dr at
Sherwood Pl
Difficult for drivers
to turn in and out of
Sherwood Pl.

Re-evaluate intersection control
evaluation analysis to study options
for intersection control.
$40,000 City
EP007 Behind school
Students walking
across agricultural
fields to reach the
schools.

Install trails or shared-use paths to
connect to Sherwood, Laurel Dr, and
Madeira Ave.
$2,100,000 City
EP008
Service roads
near canal
between Rossi
St and Main St
and Main St and
Sherwood Dr
Sherwood Dr over
Hwy 101 has high
traffic volumes and
speeds.

Create Class I shared-use path
on service roads/ROW adjacent
to canal, as identified in Urban
Greening Plan.
$1,800,000 City
EP009
Service road
near canal at
Main St
If a shared-use path
were installed, a
connection would be
needed across North
Main St.

Consider redesign of Casentini St/
Main St intersection to incorporate
bicycle crossing. Consider removing
parking and installing a raised
shared-use path on both sides of
Main St to connect the Class I path
to the Casentini intersection.
$305,000 City
School Profiles 160
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
EP010 El Puente
Campus
No marked crosswalk
for people walking to
campus.

Install high-visibility crosswalk
to connect sidewalk with front of
campus.
$4,000 City
EP011 Sherwood Drive
at Bernal St
Main crossing point
for people walking
from neighborhoods
northwest of school.

Install lead pedestrian interval
and conduct counts to determine
whether protected phase is needed.
$240,000 City
School Profiles 161

EL SAUSAL MIDDLE
El Sausal is located in east Salinas and draws most of
its students from the surrounding neighborhoods (see
map on the following page).

PARENT SURVEY
El Sausal parents were asked to complete a bilingual
survey about their attitudes toward walking and
biking to school in March 2021, and 26 surveys were
received. The full survey report is in Appendix B.

The survey asked parents to select the most important
factors in whether they allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top issues for parents are listed in Figure 21, below.

Figure 21. Parents’ top concerns about letting
children walk or bike to and from school. Bicycle boulevard treatments are recommended on Eucalyptus Dr and Towt St

GRADE LEVELS
7-8

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
1102

STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS

90.7%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
73%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
(BASED ON 26 SURVEY RESPONSES)
35%
10%
9%
9%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%

DISTANCE

VIOLENCE OR
CRIME

SAFETY OF

INTERSECTIONS

AND CROSSINGS
CHILD’S

BEFORE OR

AFTER-SCHOOL

ACTIVITIES

SPEED OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE

ADULTS TO

WALK OR BIKE
WITH

WEATHER OR

CLIMATE

MY CHILD

ALREADY

WALKED OR

BIKED TO/FROM
SCHOOL
School Profiles 162
SalinasSafe Routesto School Plan
183
Boronda Rd
Madison Ln
Fontes Ln
El Rancho Way
W Rossi S t
Sloat Dr
Post Dr
Cherokee Dr
Adams S t
Victor St
N Davis Rd
Larkin St
Colton Dr
N Davis Rd
El Camino Real
Rossi-Rico
Parkway
Boronda
Lemos Ave
Vil la S t
Clark S t
Fairfax Dr
Central Ave
Carmelita Dr
Homestead Ave
W Rossi St
Park S t
Nacional S t
West St
A r cher S t
W Acacia St
Via Maria
San Simeon Dr
Marion Ave
S t Ann Dr
Bruce Ave Lorimer S t
W Market S t
W Alisal S t
Castroville Rd
Davis Rd
Davis Rd
Hartnell College
Los Olivos Dr Iverson St
Chaucer Dr
Riker St
San Vincente Ave
Dickens Dr
Palma Dr
Kipling St
W Acacia S t
Capistrano Dr
Hitchcock Rd
W Alisal S t
W Blanco Rd
Blanco Rd
68 Hitchcock Rd
Monterey Salinas Hwy
Springtown
Pueblo Dr Osage Dr
Navajo Dr
Chaparral S t
Adams St
Main Canal
Tyler S t
Rainier Dr
Iris Dr
Noice Dr
Rico S t
Boeing Ave
Crescent Way
Linwood Dr
Hyde S t
Polk St
Chaparral S t
Navajo Dr
Monroe St
Tapadero S t
Reata S t
Rosarita Dr
Larkin S t
Tulane S t
Lupin Dr
Parkside St
Granada Ave
St Francis Way
Loma Dr
W L
aurel Dr
N Main S t
Sherwood Dr
E Laurel Dr
El Camino Real Sherwood Park
Main Canal
Martella S t
Clay S t
Griffin S t
Winham St
W Rossi St
Rianda S t
Rico S t
Riker S t Riker St
Central
Ave
California S t
Harvest S t
Auburn S t West S t
Main S t
Pajaro St
W Lake St
Bridge St
Lincoln Ave
Sun S t
W Sa
n Lui
s S t
Work St
E Market S t
W Market S t
N Main S t
Front St
Salinas St S Main S t
Sherwood Dr
John St
W Alisal S t
Monterey St
Exposition
Grounds
Amtrak-Salinas
Salinas
Padre Dr Geil S t
W Acacia S t San Marcos Dr
Lang S t
Pajaro S t
E Acacia S t
W Romie Ln
California St
Maple S t
Carmel Ave
E Romie Ln
Grove St
Harvest S t
Sierra Dr
Hawthorne S t
Oak S t
Orange Dr
San Angelo Dr
Willow S t
Chestnut S t
S Main St S Main S t
Abbot t S t
E Blanco Rd
S Main St
Claremont
Manor
Neighborhood
Park
Salinas Valley
Memorial
Hospital
68 Hunter Ln
Independence Blvd
Los Coches Ave
Cambrian Dr
Sut
E A
ter S t
lvin Dr
Gabilan Creek
Natividad Creek
Ramona Ave
Tampico Ave Rainier Dr
Marin Ave
Trazado Ave
Constitution Blvd
Natividad Rd
Chinese Garden
Cemetery The First Tee of
Monterey
County
Constitution
Soccer Fields
Natividad
Medical Center
Ali sal Creek
Oregon S t
Fremont S t
Eucalyptus Dr
Towt S t
Roosevelt St
N Hebbron Ave
S t Edwards Ave
Kings S t
Kern S t
Kern St
First Ave
Acosta Plz
Meadow Dr
N Pearl S t
S Filice St John S t
E Market S t
N Sanborn Rd
E Laurel Dr
S Sanborn Rd
E Alisal S t
El Camino Real
Cesar E Chavez
Community Park
Alisal Creek
101
101
Merrill St
Airport Blvd
Schilling Pl
Vertin Ave
Work S t
Blanco Cir
Terven Ave
Johnson Pl
Growers St
Brunken Ave
Harkins Rd
Abbot t St
S Sanborn Rd
El Camino Real
Ioof Cemetery
Spreckels
Junction
Merrill St
Nutting S t
Dayton S t
Harkins Rd
Creekbridge
Neighborhood
Park
Steinbeck
Neighborhood
Park
Pacific Ave
Antigua Ave
Atlantic S t
Eagle Dr
Rider Ave
N Sanborn Rd
Alamo Way
Beacon Hill Dr
Towt S t
Garner Ave
Las Casitas Dr
E Boronda Rd
Sunrise St
N Sanborn Rd
N Sanborn Rd
Freedom Pkwy
Natividad Creek
Park
Sycamore Rd
Del Monte Ave
Second Ave
Margaret S t
Toro Ave Skyway Blvd
First Ave
Cross Ave
Kimmel S t
Paloma Ave
Green S t
Mae Ave
Monte Bella Blvd
Dallas Ave
Bardin Rd
E Alisal S t
E Laurel Dr Williams Rd Williams Rd
Alisal Rd
Closter Park
Alisal
Alisal Creek
101
Mof fet t S t
Airport Blvd
Skyway Blvd
Salinas
Fairways Golf
Course
Hartnell
College-Alisal
Campus
Salinas
Municipal
Airport
Alisal Creek
El Camino Real
Old S tage Rd
Williams Rd Williams Rd
Old Stage Rd
Williams Ranch
Park
Palermo Dr
Freedom Pkwy
Sconberg Pkwy
Alisal Rd Alisal Rd Alisal Rd
Alisal Creek
Williams Rd
Old Stage Rd
Alisal Creek
Alisal Creek
Zabala Rd
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community StudentsEl Sausal Middle SchoolPublic LibrariesCommunity CentersParksSalinas Boundary Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
≤ 1/2 miles: 294 students
1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 505 students1 ≥ 2 miles: 205 students
School Profiles 163

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• El Sausal is located on East Alisal Street, a fivelane roadway with parking on both sides. East Alisal Street is very congested before and after
school.
• There is a drop-off area at the school frontage.

There is a parking lot on the west side of campus
that is reserved for staff. Left turns are permitted
out of the school parking lot.
• Bus drop-off takes place on Towt Street,
adjacent to the school campus.
• As of the writing of this plan, the speed limit in
front of the school is 30 miles per hour.

Pedestrian Conditions
• There are sidewalks on both sides of East Alisal
Street near the school.
• There is a high-visibility yellow crosswalk across
Towt Street to the east of the school frontage,
and another on Towt Street and 1st Avenue.

There is also a marked yellow crosswalk across
East Alisal Street at Towt Street, and updated
curb ramps and a curb extension to reduce
crossing distances.
• There are yellow crosswalks across Eucalyptus
Drive at East Alisal Street and at Connely Street.
• There are missing curb ramps at many
intersections surrounding the school.

Bicycling Conditions
• There are no bicycle facilities on East Alisal
Street or other residential roadways near
the school.
• A recent Safe Routes to Schools project installed
separated bikeways on East Market Street, on
the backside of the school.

Students cross East Alisal at Eucalyptus Dr to go to the grocery stores after school

RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND EL
School Profiles 164 SAUSAL MIDDLE The following table lists recommendations for El Sausal, and the map below shows their locations in relation to the school.

School Profiles 165
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
ESM001 E Alisal St
Five-lane roadway with
higher traffic volumes
and speeds. Heavy traffic
congestion before and
after school.

Install roadway reconfiguration
and Class IV bikeway per Alisal
Corridor Plan. Remove on-street
parking in front of school, and
shift bus drop-off from Towt St to
E Alisal St.
$1,236,340 City
ESM002
Eucalyptus Dr at
school parking
lot driveway
School parking area
has rolled curb and no
defined entrances and
exits.

Install stop or yield signs at
driveway exits. $1,700 School
ESM003
Eucalyptus Dr
from Parkway Rd
to E Alisal St
Heavy congestion on East
Alisal before and after
school. Space is available
for drop-off on Towt St
and Eucalyptus Dr, but
is limited by resident
parking.

Install loading-zone curb
markings and signage along
the east side of Eucalyptus Dr
for drop-off and pick-up. Install
formal pedestrian entrance
to campus from Eucalyptus
Dr. Consider shade trees,
landscaping, and wider sidewalk.
$185,165 School /sity
ESM004 Eucalyptus Dr at
Connely St
Reports of drivers not
yielding to pedestrians in
the crosswalk.

Install raised crosswalk with
yellow high-visibility crossing.

Construct curb extensions to
tighten corner turning radius, and
add marked crossings on Connely
St. Add school crossing signage
on both sides of the street.
$159,700 City
ESM005 Eucalyptus Dr Reports of speeding.

Resurface street. Install traffic
calming and create bike
boulevard.
$2,021,925 City
ESM006 Eucalyptus Dr at
E Alisal St
Students running across
E Alisal St after being
dropped off or to go to
the grocery store after
school.

Consider pedestrian facility, per
city policy. Consider median
to restrict left turns out of
Eucalyptus Dr. Upgrade crosswalk
on Eucalyptus Dr to high-visibility,
and construct curb extensions.
$114,500 City
ESM007
Eucalyptus Dr at
school parking
lot driveway
Limited parking on
campus. Parking area
has rolled curb and no
defined entrances or
exits.

Reconstruct driveway entrances
to staff parking lot, and redesign
parking lot with reconfigured
stalls restricted to teachers. Due
to the rolled curb, the street
or sidewalk may need to be
reconfigured as well.
$96,600 School
ESM008 General
Heavy congestion on East
Alisal before and after
school.

Work with nearby churches, such
as Vineyard Christian and Iglesia
Bautista Del Sur, to establish parkand-walk programs.

N/A
School/TAMC/
nonprofit
partners
School Profiles 166
NO. STREET ISSUE RECOMMENDATION COST EST. IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY
ESM009 Towt St at E Alisal
St
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Upgrade crosswalk on E Alisal
St with yellow high-visibility
markings.
$8,000 City
ESM010 Towt St at 1st Ave Key pedestrian route to
school.

Add school crossing signage on
both sides of the street. $1,700 City
ESM011 Towt St at Myrtle
St
Key pedestrian route to
school.

Install curb extensions and
formalize pedestrian island to
narrow the intersection. Install
high-visibility crosswalks and
curb ramps across Myrtle.
$230,000 City
ESM012
Towt St from E
Alisal St to Market
St
Heavy congestion on East
Alisal before and after
school. Space is available
for drop-off on Towt St
and Eucalyptus Dr but
is limited by resident
parking. Reports of
speeding.

Install traffic calming and
speed humps, and create bike
boulevard. Install loading-zone
curb markings and signage along
the west side of Towt St for dropoff and pick-up. Install a formal pedestrian entrance to campus
from Towt St. Consider shade
trees, landscaping, and wider
sidewalk.
$957,295 City/school
School Profiles 167

EVERETT ALVAREZ HIGH
Alvarez High is located in north Salinas and draws
students from the surrounding neighborhoods
and from east Salinas between Sanborn Road and
Natividad Creek (see map on the following page).

PARENT SURVEY
Alvarez High parents were asked to complete a
bilingual survey about their attitudes toward walking
and biking to school in March 2021, and 51 surveys
were received. The full survey report is in Appendix B.

The survey asked parents to select the most important
factors in whether they allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top issues for parents are listed in Figure 22, below.

Figure 22. Parents’ top concerns about letting
children walk or bike to and from school.

Parents park in the bike lane on Nantucket Blvd,
making it difficult for buses to enter and exit the
school campus

GRADE LEVELS
9-12

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
2645

STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR

FREE OR REDUCED MEALS

62.9%

STUDENTS RESIDING WITHIN
1 MILE OF SCHOOL
26%

STUDENTS USING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
(BASED ON 51 SURVEY RESPONSES)
22%
10%
9%
8%
8%

VIOLENCE OR
CRIME

AMOUNT OF

TRAFFIC

ALONG ROUTE

WEATHER OR

CLIMATE

SAFETY OF

INTERSECTIONS

AND CROSSINGS
14%

DISTANCE
School Profiles 168
SalinasSafe Routesto School Plan
Espinosa Rd Espinosa Rd
El Camino Real
Madison Ln
Fontes Ln
El Rancho Way
W Rossi St
Sloat Dr
Post Dr
Cherokee Dr
Adams S t
Victor St
N Davis Rd
Larkin St
Colton Dr
N Davis Rd
El Camino Real
Rossi-Rico
Parkway
Boronda
Vil la S t
Clark S t
W Rossi St
W Market S t
Davis Rd
Harrison Rd
El Camino Real
101
Paul Ave
Van Buren Ave
E Bolivar S t Louis e S t
Swaner Ave
Arthur St
Roundtree Dr
Outlook Ln
Lenny S t
Harrison Rd
San Juan Grade Rd
Russell Rd
N Main St
E Boronda Rd
Espinosa Rd
El Camino Real
Santa Rita
Pueblo Dr
Cherokee Dr
Osage Dr
Navajo Dr
Chaparral S t
Harden Pkwy
McKinnon S t
E Alvin Dr
Adams St
N 1st S t
N Main S t
E Boronda Rd
El Camino Real Harden Ranch Plaza Northridge Mall
Heald
College-Salinas
Main Canal
Tyler S t
Rainier Dr
Iris Dr
Noice Dr
Rico S t
Boeing Ave
Crescent Way
Linwood Dr
Hyde S t
Polk St
Chaparral St
Navajo Dr
Monroe St
Tapadero St
Reata S t
Rosarita Dr
Larkin S t
Tulane S t
Lupin Dr
Parkside S t
Granada Ave
St Francis Way
Loma Dr
W L
aurel Dr
N Main S t
Sherwood Dr
E Laurel Dr
El Camino Real Sherwood Park
Main Canal
Martella S t
W Rossi S t
Rico S t
W Lake St
Bridge St
Sun S t
W Market S t
N Main S t
Sherwood DrExposition Grounds
Amtrak-Salinas
Kelton Dr
Penzance St
Rogge Rd
Paul Ave
Jade Dr
Natividad Rd
Bolsa Knolls
Emerald Dr
Arcadia Way
Calaveras Dr
Coventry S t
Glendora Way
Inglewood S t
Pescadero Dr
Independence Blvd
Victoria Ave
Los Coches Ave
Cambrian Dr
Sutter S t
Klamath Dr
E Alvin Dr
Humboldt Dr
Natividad Rd Natividad Rd E Boronda Rd El Dorado Community Park Gabilan Creek
Natividad Creek
Ramona Ave
Tampico Ave Rainier Dr
Marin Ave
Trazado Ave
Constitution Blvd
Natividad Rd
Chinese Garden
Cemetery The First Tee of
Monterey
County
Constitution
Soccer Fields
Natividad
Medical Center
Oregon S t
N Madeira Ave
S t Edwards Ave
Kern St
Acosta Plz
N Sanborn Rd E Laurel Dr
Old Natividad Rd
Natividad Rd
Old Stage Rd
Natividad Creek
Gabilan Creek
Bradbury St Nantucket Blvd
E Boronda Rd
Creekbridge
Neighborhood
Park
Steinbeck
Neighborhood
Park
Pacific Ave
Antigua Ave
Atlantic S t
Eagle Dr
Rider Ave
N Sanborn Rd
Alamo Way
Beacon Hill Dr
Towt S t
Garner Ave
Las Casitas Dr
E Boronda Rd
Sunrise St
N Sanborn Rd
N Sanborn Rd
Freedom Pkwy
Natividad Creek
Park
Del Monte Ave
Kimmel S t
Green S t
Mae Ave
Dallas Ave
Williams Rd Closter Park
Nativ idad Creek
Natividad Creek
Old S tage Rd
Natividad
Old Stage Rd Old S tage Rd
Williams Rd Williams Rd
Old S tage Rd
Williams Ranch
Park
Freedom Pkwy
Gabilan Creek
Willia ms Rd
Alisal Creek
Alisal Creek
Williams Rd
Old Stage Rd
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community StudentsEverett Alvarez High SchoolPublic LibrariesCommunity CentersParksSalinas Boundary Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike PathBike LaneBike Route
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
≤ 1/2 miles: 298 students
1/2 ≥ 1 miles: 388 students1 ≥ 2 miles: 1154 students
School Profiles 169

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

CONDITIONS
Motorist Conditions
• Alvarez High is located on Independence
Boulevard, a four-lane roadway that narrows to
two lanes south of Nantucket Boulevard. There
is no parking on either side of Independence
Boulevard near the school. Independence
Boulevard is very congested before and
after school.
• There is a drop-off loop and two large parking
lots on the school campus. The northern
parking lot, on the west side of campus, is
reserved for staff and visitors, and the southern
lot is reserved for students. Left turns are
permitted out of the school parking lot onto
Coventry Street.
• Bus drop-off takes place on the campus. Buses
enter from Nantucket Boulevard and exit onto
Independence Boulevard at Coventry Street.
• As of the writing of this plan, the speed limit in
front of the school is 30 miles per hour.

Pedestrian Conditions
• There are sidewalks on both sides of
Independence Boulevard and Nantucket
Boulevard near the school.
• There are high-visibility yellow crosswalks on
two legs of the intersection of Independence
Boulevard and Danbury Street.
• There are yellow crosswalks on all legs of the
intersection of Independence Boulevard and
Nantucket Boulevard.
• There are curb ramps at many intersections
surrounding the school.

Salinas City CouncilOctober 18, 2022

Salinas City Council
October 18, 2022