Salinas City Council
May 2, 2023

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALINAS LOCAL JURISDICTION AND THE

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY FOR THE

COMPLETION OF HUD ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORDS
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) is made on May 3, 2023, by and between the Housing Authority of the County of Monterey, an incorporated public housing authority (hereinafter referred to as the PHA) and the City of Salinas, a local jurisdiction, a body politic and incorporated, acting as the Responsible Entity (hereinafter referred to as RE).

WHEREAS, the PHA is a housing choice voucher only PHA under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, and may elect to pursue housing projects and/or activities with federal financial assistance subject to environmental reviews pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, including but not limited to the regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500- 1508, and implementing regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including but not limited to HUD’s regulations at 24 CFR Part 58; and WHEREAS, as the recipient of federal financial assistance, the PHA may secure assistance for completing environmental reviews by the unit of general local government where the project is located as the RE authorized to assume environmental review obligations pursuant to 24 CFR 58.2(a)(7)(ii)(B); and
WHEREAS, the RE certifies it is authorized to: (1) assume responsibility for environmental review, decision making and action under NEPA and each provision of law designated in 24 CFR 58.5 applicable to any and all of the HUD financial assistance awarded to the PHA; (2) accept jurisdiction of the Federal courts for enforcement of these environmental responsibilities; and (3) execute the certification portion of HUD’s Request for Release of Funds (RROF) and certifications as set forth in 24 CFR 58.4, 58.13, and 58.71; and WHEREAS, the PHA requested the RE to complete the environmental review record with respect to the PHA’s projects or activities pursuant to the conditions and provisions set forth in this MOU and the RE accepts responsibility to act as the responsible Federal agency under NEPA and the laws and authorities in 24 CFR 58.5 with respect to said projects and activities.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and the terms and conditions set forth below, the PHA and RE hereby agree as follows:

Article 1. Incorporation of recitals: The recitals sets forth above are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein and made a part hereof.

Article 2. Duties and Responsibilities of RE:

1. RE will perform and/or manage all environmental reviews and prepare all necessary documentation in support of the environmental review record for all activities pursuant to the PHA’s projects and any accompanying documents necessary to be submitted to HUD, in full compliance with:
a) HUD’s “Environmental Review Procedures for Entities Assuming HUD Environmental Responsibilities” (24 CFR Part 58);
b) Section 102 of NEPA;
c) Related provisions of the Council on Environment Quality regulations contained in 40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508; and
d) All other applicable Federal and State regulations.

2. Where appropriate and necessary in the environmental review process, RE will issue Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs) or Findings of Significant Impact (FOSI), determine whether to hold public hearings, prepare environmental impact statements and records of decision, issue notices of FONSIs and notices of intent to Request Release of Funds (RROF), and prepare requests for release of funds.

3. RE may retain consultants and experts for special reviews or investigations and obtain other outside services deemed necessary by RE to its functions hereunder.

Prior to retaining any such experts, consultants or outside services, RE shall discuss the need for and scope of such work or services with the PHA. Should the need arise, the PHA shall pay the cost of any such experts, consultants or outside services to complete the environmental review record.

Article 3: Duties and Responsibilities of PHA:

1. PHA procures at PHA’s expense and provides RE with all available project and environmental information needed by RE in connection with activities pursuant to this MOU, including, without limitation, existing relevant information and any reports of investigation or study required to conduct an environmental review consistent with law and regulations.

2. PHA provides RE with documentation that adequately describes the full scope, purpose, and interrelationships of the subject HUD assisted project, which may include privately financed or non-federally assisted PHA financing, and any other documents and/or information requested by RE that RE reasonably believes is necessary to perform services required under this MOU and that are within the PHA’s possession or control.

3. PHA serves as liaison with local community groups and residents regarding all aspects of RE services under this MOU, including, but not limited to, scheduling meetings and participating in public meetings. PHA provides the RE with prior written notice of all meetings related to MOU services in order to allow the RE the opportunity to participate in such meetings.

4. PHA reimburses RE for expenses incurred for performing services under this MOU, including, but not limited to:
a. costs of publishing notices;
b. necessary travel expenses;
c. postage and express package delivery charges;
d. fees and expenses of experts, consultants and outside services retained by the RE;
e. RE’s staff time devoted to performance of MOU services; and f. actual costs incurred associated with any surveys or investigations.

5. PHA monitors environmental mitigation or procures such services to ensure compliance with environmental conditions specified in the authorization to use HUD funds or HUD approvals.

6. PHA provides the Five Year and Annual Plans to the RE in order to facilitate integration between RE planning and PHA activities and projects that require environmental reviews, including development, modernization, or other capital activities.

7. PHA communicates to stakeholders the requirements for environmental reviews before any partner or stakeholder in the development makes a choice-limiting action upon submission of an application for HUD financial assistance.

Article 4: Duties and Responsibilities of RE for RE Projects:

1. RE procures at RE’s expense and provides PHA with all available project and environmental information needed by PHA in connection with activities pursuant to this MOU, including, without limitation, existing relevant information and any reports of investigation or study required to conduct an environmental review consistent with law and regulations.

2. RE provides PHA with documentation that adequately describes the full scope, purpose, and interrelationships of the subject HUD assisted project, which may include privately financed or non-federally assisted PHA financing, and any other documents and/or information requested by PHA that PHA reasonably believes is necessary to perform services required under this MOU and that are within the RE’s possession or control.

3. RE serves as liaison with local community groups and residents regarding all aspects of RE services under this MOU, including, but not limited to, scheduling meetings and participating in public meetings. RE provides the PHA with prior written notice of all meetings related to MOU services in order to allow the PHA the opportunity to participate in such meetings.

4. RE monitors environmental mitigation or procures such services to ensure compliance with environmental conditions specified in the authorization to use HUD funds or HUD approvals.

5. RE communicates to stakeholders the requirements for environmental reviews before any partner or stakeholder in the development makes a choice-limiting

action upon submission of an application for HUD financial assistance.

6. RE is responsible for providing an environmental review, subsidy layering information, and ensuring that all contracted units meet HUD’s HQS standards for proposals selected in accordance with 24 CFR 983.51 to receive assistance such as Project Based Voucher units.

Article 5. Agreement terms

1. This MOU is effective for a period of 2 years or until terminated by the PHA pursuant to the provisions of this MOU.

2. PHA may terminate this MOU at any time by giving 90 days written notice to RE.

3. RE may terminate this MOU for cause upon 90 days’ notice to PHA, including a statement of the reasons therefore, and after an opportunity for a hearing is afforded.

As used herein, cause shall include any failure of PHA to promptly reimburse RE for costs, any other non-performance by PHA under this MOU or any material failure by PHA to comply with any term of this MOU.

ARTICLE 6. Conditions

1. No official, employee or agent of either party shall be charged personally by the other or by an assignee or subcontractor with any liability or expenses of defense or be held personally liable under any term or provision of this MOU, because of such party’s execution or attempted execution of this MOU, or because of any breach thereof.

2. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no other warranties, inducements, considerations, promises, or interpretations shall be implied or impressed upon this MOU that are not expressly addressed herein.

3. No changes or modifications of this MOU are binding unless made in writing and executed by the duly authorized officers of both the PHA and RE.

4. PHA and RE shall at all times observe and comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and executive orders of the federal, state and local government now existing or hereinafter in effect, which may in any manner affect the performance of this MOU.

5. Whenever under this MOU either party, by a proper authority, waives either party’s performance in any respect or waives a requirement or condition of either party’s performance, the waiver so granted, whether express or implied, shall only apply to the particular instance and shall not be deemed a waiver forever for subsequent instances of the performance, requirement, or condition. No such waiver shall be construed as a modification of the MOU regardless of the number of times either party may have waived the performance, requirement, or condition.

ARTICLE 7. Authority and notice

1. Each person signing this MOU represents and warrants that such person has the requisite power and authority to enter into, execute, and deliver this MOU and that this MOU is a valid and legally binding and enforceable obligation in accordance with its terms.

2. All verbal and written communication, including required reports and submissions, shall be transmitted between RE and PHA as noted below.

Any notices sent to City shall be electronically transmitted to:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Any notices sent to the PHA shall be electronically transmitted to:
[email protected]
[email protected]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Salinas, a local jurisdiction, and the Housing Authority of the County of Monterey have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the date first written above and under the laws of the State of California.

City of Salinas, Local Jurisdiction Date
Steven S. Carrigan, City Manager

The Housing Authority of the County of Monterey Date
Zulieka Boykin, Executive Director
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, DC 20410-7000

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY PLANNING

AND DEVELOPMENT
www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov
MEMORANDUM FOR: Marion M. McFadden, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development (CPD), D
THROUGH: Elizabeth S. Hendrix, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs, DG
FROM: Kristin L. Fontenot, Director, Office of Environment and Energy, (OEE), DGE
SUBJECT: Request for Waiver - 24 CFR 58.22(a) Limitation on Activities Pending Clearance
Section 8 Project-based Vouchers - City of Salinas Homekey project Enclosed is a letter from the City of Salinas requesting HUD review the circumstances of the violation of 24 CFR 58.22(a) and approve the Request for a Waiver of 24 CFR Part 581 to use Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs) to support the Salinas Homekey project and Memoranda from HUD’s Region IX Regional Environmental officer and the Director of Office of Public Housing (PIH), San Francisco regional office that recommend approving this waiver with conditions.

ISSUE:

The violation was discovered when the Housing Authority of the County of Monterey (HACM) discovered the City of Salinas (the City) initiated rehabilitation activities prior to completing the environmental assessment and receiving the Authority to Use Grant Funds (AUGF) and contacted PIH. The PIH office in consultation with the Office of Environment and Energy (OEE) issued a Notice of Regulatory Violation on July 23, 2021 (Attached). The City and HACM acknowledge that undertaking project activities prior to receipt of the AUGF is a regulatory violation of 24 CFR 58.22(a), Limitations on activities pending clearance.

FACTS:

Description of Project
Salinas Homekey Project (the “Project”) consists of acquisition and conversion of a 103- room hotel located at 545 Work Street, Salinas, CA 93901 to 101 units of interim housing in the first year and permanent supportive housing thereafter for those experiencing chronic homelessness.

The building will include two units designated for project managers.

The Project is part of the State of California (State) Homekey Program Initiative. The State Homekey Program provides grant funding to purchase and rehabilitate housing, hotels, motels, and other buildings for use as interim or permanent, longterm housing. The City partnered with 1 HUD’s Guidance for Obtaining Waiver of 24 CFR Part 58 (2004) describes the process for obtaining a waiver when a regulatory violation of 24 CFR Part 58 has occurred.

KRISTIN FONTENOT Digitally signed by KRISTIN FONTENOT
Date: 2022.12.09 15:30:24 -05'00'
Digitally signed by: ELIZABETH HENDRIX
DN: CN = ELIZABETH HENDRIX C = US O = U.S. Government
OU = Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development
Date: 2022.12.12 09:54:27 -05'00'

ELIZABETH HENDRIX
2 Shangri-La Industries, LLC (Shangri-La) and Step Up on Second, Inc. (Step Up) to apply for Homekey funding. The Project was awarded $9.2 million in Homekey Program funds.

HACM awarded eighty-five (85) Section 8 PBVs with an approximate value of $1,378,020 dollars annually to the housing developer Step Up on Second, Inc. (Step Up). The PBV funds will be provided to the Project for a period of twenty-five (25) years and will provide a grand total of $34,450,500 towards the development of the Project.

Description of Violation
On August 19, 2020, Shangri-La submitted an application for HUD PBV funding to HACM. After submitting the application for HUD funding and before completion of HUD’s environmental review process, on November 2, 2020, Shangri La executed the purchase agreement for the Good Nite Inn property and in May 2021, Shangri-La and Step Up began rehabilitation activities at the site, using State Homekey funds. There was no premature commitment of HUD funds. On July 23, 2021, HUD notified HACM and the City of the regulatory violation and informed the City of the option to submit a request to HUD to review the circumstances of the violation and consider approving the project.

Section 26(b) of the U.S Housing Act of 1937 (USHA) (42 U.S.C. 1437x(b)) provides that the Secretary of HUD may not approve the release funds for a project unless the recipient has submitted a Request for Release of Funds and Certification (RROF/C) prior to any commitment of funds to the project. HUD’s Office of General Counsel has interpreted the word “funds” in the Act to mean HUD funds. Due to the fact that no HUD funds were committed or expended in violation of the USHA there is no statutory violation.

Pursuant to 24 CFR 58.22(a):
"Neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process, including public or private nonprofit or for-profit entities, or any of their contractors, may commit HUD assistance under a program listed in § 58.1(b) on an activity or project until HUD or the state has approved the recipient's RROF and the related certification from the responsible entity. In addition, until the RROF and the related certification have been approved, neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process may commit non-HUD funds on or undertake an activity or project under a program listed in § 58.1(b) if the activity or project would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives."
HUD finds that a regulatory violation occurred when Shangri-La and Step Up acquired the property at 545 Work Street and began rehabilitation activities prior to HUD approval of the RROF/C. This is a prohibited choice-limiting action that violates the second sentence of § 58.22(a).

Determination of Good Cause
HUD may approve a Request for a Waiver of Part 58 when a regulatory violation has occurred, if there is good cause to grant the waiver and no unmitigated adverse environmental 3 impacts will result. The party requesting HUD’s review must present evidence that there is good cause to approve the waiver (i.e., the violation was inadvertent, and the project furthers HUD program goals).

The City’s request notes that Shangri-La and Step Up were not aware of the City’s obligation to comply with HUD’s environmental review regulations at 24 CFR Part 58 prior to acquiring the property and beginning rehabilitation activities. When notified that project activities must be halted until the City completed the environmental review process, all project activities that were not determined by the City to be essential life and safety repairs were immediately halted.

Additionally, the City erroneously determined that the project met the exemption at 24 CFR

58.34(a)(10) for emergency activities and was exempt from complying with the National Environmental Policy Act requirements to complete an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

OEE has reviewed the City’s Revised Final Environmental Assessment (EA) executed June 10, 2022. A portion of the property appears to be occupied by a floodway. This is a new circumstance that was not previously identified because maps associated with previous iterations of the EA depicted the property as a pinpoint, whereas the FEMA flood map included with the Revised Final EA shows the property boundaries. In accordance with HUD’s Floodplain Management regulations at 24 CFR 55.1(c), HUD may not approve a project if any area of the site is located in a floodway. There are two methods to avoid this environmental impact and bring the property into compliance with 24 CFR Part 55:

1. HUD recognizes that FEMA flood maps may not represent the legal geographic boundaries of the project site or floodway. The City may obtain the legal description of the property boundaries and the location of the floodway and locate those boundaries on an official map to determine if the floodway is on the property. A City or County flood official may be able to assist. If the floodway is not located on the property, submit the official location descriptions and map to HUD.

2. If option 1 confirms that the floodway is on the property, or the City chooses not to use option 1, the portion of the property that includes the floodway must be transferred to another owner, or the property must be subdivided and the floodway portion removed from the legal description of the property, and documentation of the revised property description must be provided to HUD.

RECOMMENDATION:

The City asserts the regulatory violation was unintentional, HACM and the City have committed to receiving training and technical assistance, and the purpose of the Project to provide housing and supportive services to the homeless furthers HUD program goals.

Therefore, OEE recommends approving the waiver (after which HUD would approve the RROF/C) with the following conditions:
4 (1) Within sixty days the City must submit documentation of compliance with HUD’s Floodplain Management regulation above by submitting an official map from the City or County flood official that documents the floodway is not located on the property OR within ninety days submitting a copy of a deed or other document and map that documents the floodway area is removed from the property. (2) All current City and HACM staff that conduct or approve HUD environmental reviews shall complete all modules of HUD’s Web-Based Instructional System for Environmental Review (WISER), excepting the module “Getting Started: Part 50”, no later than 60 days from the date the waiver is approved. Staff that are hired to conduct or approve environmental reviews after the date the waiver is approved shall complete the WISER modules within 60 days after employment begins. Staff that do not meet the above criteria but are subsequently transferred into a role that involves conducting or approving environmental reviews shall complete the WISER modules within 60 days of the transfer. Upon completion of the WISER modules by current staff, the City and HACM shall provide HUD with a list of staff and dates of completion. The requirement to complete WISER modules does not apply to the City’s Certifying Officer as defined by 24 CFR 58.2(a)(2) but does apply to potential delegates.
(3) Prior to the Responsible Entity Agency Official finalizing any environmental review at the Exempt, Categorically Excluded Not Subject to 58.5 (CENST), or Categorically Excluded Subject to 58.5 (CEST) level, the City shall submit the draft environmental review to HUD for review and comment. Prior to the Certifying Officer finalizing any environmental review at the Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement level, the City shall submit the draft environmental review to HUD for review and comment. HUD’s goal is to provide comments on draft environmental reviews within 2 weeks of receipt; however, HUD may require more time for complex CEST- or EA-level reviews. The City shall account for HUD’s review time during its planning process. The requirements of this condition will be considered fulfilled when HUD has reviewed and determined there are no substantive errors or omissions on two Exemptor CENST-level reviews, one CEST-level review, and one EA-level review. (4) If the City intends to apply the emergency/disaster exemption at 24 CFR 58.34(a)(10) to any project, the Preparer and the Responsible Entity Agency Official shall prepare signed statements attesting to reviewing HUD’s memorandum of December 11, 2012, regarding “Environmental Review Processing During Emergencies and Following Disasters under 24 CFR Part 58” and determining that, per the memorandum, the exemption is applicable to the specific project. Copies of the signed statements shall be included in the environmental review record for the specific project. This requirement remains in place until the next environmental monitoring of the City’s environmental review records. (5) The City and HACM shall each develop policies and procedures for conducting environmental review of all HUD-funded projects. At a minimum, the policies and procedures shall describe environmental training requirements for new staff or transfer of staff as described in condition 2 and the requirement to attest to use of the HUD 5 memorandum when applying the emergency/disaster exemption as described in condition

4. The policies and procedures shall also describe coordination with project sponsors, subrecipients, and other partners to ensure environmental reviews are completed prior to expending HUD or non-HUD funds or undertaking activities that could adversely affect the environment or limit the choice of alternative actions. The policies and procedures shall describe how the City and HACM intend to proactively notify potential sponsors, subrecipients, and other partners of the consequences of taking action or spending funds prior to completion of the environmental review. The City and HACM shall submit their policies and procedures to HUD no later than 90 days from the date the waiver is approved.
(6) If the City and HACM do not currently have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlines each agency’s roles and responsibilities for HUD environmental reviews, the City and HACM shall execute an MOU based on the example in HUD Notice PIH 2013-07. If the City and HACM are currently operating under such an MOU, the City and HACM shall review the MOU with respect to changes to their policies and procedures described in condition 5 and, if appropriate, amend the MOU or execute a new MOU to reflect these changes. The City and HACM shall provide HUD with a copy of the MOU upon execution, amendment, or confirmation that it meets these requirements but no later than 120 days from the date the waiver is approved. (7) Delegation of the Certifying Officer’s authority shall be suspended upon the date the waiver request is approved. The Certifying Officer’s authority may be delegated upon receipt of HUD’s acknowledgement that condition 2, 3, and 5 have been satisfactorily completed.

CONTACT:

For further information, contact Kristin Fontenot, Office of Environment and Energy, at 202-655-1412 or [email protected].

Attachments
DECISION:

Approve Disapprove Date
cc:

Elizabeth S. Hendrix, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs (Acting), DG Kristin Fontenot, Director, Office of Environment and Energy, DGE City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-275, Version: 1
Main Street at Lamar Street Pedestrian Enhancements
Approve a Resolution authorizing the establishment of a new CIP account named “Main Street at Lamar Street Pedestrian Enhancements Project” and authorize the acceptance of Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant funds in the amount of $247,500.00; authorize the establishment of a Measure X appropriation of up to $27,500.00 and use of Measure X fund balance as matching funds; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute all agreements and any required documents with Caltrans for the Grant Program.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 2, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS P.E., L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ANDREW EASTERLING, TRAFFIC ENGINEER
TITLE: MAIN STREET AT LAMAR STREET PEDESTRIAN

ENHANCEMENTS
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to:
1) Authorize the establishment of a new CIP account named, “Main Street at Lamar Street Pedestrian Enhancements Project” with an appropriation of $275,000; 2) Authorize the acceptance of Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant funds in the amount of $247,500;
3) Authorize a transfer of $247,500 from the Special Construction Assistance - Federal & State Fund (5201) to the CIP Fund (5800) for the Project and corresponding revenue budget;
4) Authorize a transfer of $27,500 from the Measure X (2510) Fund to the CIP Fund (5800) for the Project and use of Measure X (2510) fund balance as matching funds for Main Street at Lamar Street Pedestrian Enhancements Project; and 5) Authorize the Public Works Director to execute all agreements and any required paperwork with Caltrans for the Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant Program.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On September 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the City of Salinas Vision Zero Action Plan.

The Vision Zero Action Plan identified the intersection of North Main Street at Lamar Street as having the highest number of pedestrian-involved collisions for any unsignalized intersections in the City. The City submitted an application for grant funding to enhance the crosswalk, and the project was selected to receive $247,500.00 with a 10% local match.

BACKGROUND:
“Vision Zero” is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. It is a movement that began in Europe and spread to American cities, rooted in the philosophy that no loss of life due to road crashes is acceptable or inevitable and therefore sets the goal of reducing fatalities and severe injuries to zero. Nearby cities such as Monterey, Watsonville and San Jose have all adopted a Vision Zero Policy. Vision Page | 2
Zero is a multidisciplinary approach, bringing together diverse and necessary stakeholders to address this complex problem. Vision Zero acknowledges that many factors contribute to safe mobility not just roadway design, but also speeds, behaviors, technology, and policies, and sets clear goals to achieve the shared goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries. At the February 11, 2020, meeting, City Council passed Resolution No. 21790 (Attachment 1) adopting a Vision Zero Policy and directing staff to develop a Vision Zero Action Plan.

On September 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the City of Salinas Vision Zero Action Plan (Attachment 2) through Resolution No. 22184 (Attachment 3). The Action Plan was developed through a data-driven process. City staff compiled 10 years of collision data from 2009 to 2018 and created maps using geographic information systems (GIS) technology to display and filter collision data to help illustrate spatial patterns and trends. This data-driven analysis help reveal collision trends and patterns in collision type, driver factors, roadway features, vehicle factors or environmental conditions. Trends in the data help reveal emphasis areas where a higher frequency of collisions can be evaluated to achieve the goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries most effectively.

One of the emphasis areas the plan focused on were intersections with high rates of pedestrian involved collisions. The plan identified the three intersections with the highest number of pedestrian collisions which include North Sanborn Road at Garner Avenue, East Alisal Street at Griffin Street, and North Main Street at Lamar Street. North Sanborn Road at Garner Avenue, and East Alisal Street at Griffin Street are both signalized intersections, whereas Main Street at Lamar Street is uncontrolled. Because the North Main Street at Lamar Street intersection has a high pedestrian collision rate and lacks controls it was considered a good candidate for improvement in the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), and staff submitted an application for grant funding to enhance the crosswalk.

The crosswalk crossing North Main Street is approximately 80 feet long and it spans five (5) lanes of traffic. There is an existing rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) system mounted on signposts on either side of the crossing. However, due to the number of lanes, this system may not always be visible to drivers, especially when traveling at higher speeds. The City’s Crosswalk Policy (Attachment 4) refers to this as a multiple-threat condition. Multiple-threat collisions occur as one vehicle slows down to allow pedestrians to cross, but a second vehicle approaching from behind in the adjacent lane may not see the pedestrian or flashing beacon. The slowing vehicle blocks the sight line of both the pedestrian and the second motorist, leading to possible pedestrianvehicle collisions. Grant funds would be awarded to improve the crosswalk to upgrade the existing RRFB system to include overhead signs and flashing beacons. Overhead flashing beacons would mitigate the multiple-threat condition and improve the crosswalk to meet City policy.

Following the acceptance of grant funding, City staff would begin to develop plans and specifications. The project would come back to City Council to approve plans and specifications before going to construction. Additionally, Caltrans will review the project documents before authorizing the use of grant funds for construction.

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).

Page | 3
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This item supports the City Council’s goals of “Public Safety” and “Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability”.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Public Works Department and Finance Department manage the project accounting. The Public Works Department manages construction contract, inspection, and final acceptance of construction projects.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no impact to the General Fund. The total project cost is estimated to be $275,000. The Highway Safety Improvement Program requires a 10% match. If accepted, the grant amount would be $247,500, and the City would be required to contribute $27,500 as a local match. Staff requests the appropriation of up to $27,500 and use of Measure X (2510) fund balance as matching funds for Main Street at Lamar Street Pedestrian Enhancements Project.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1: Resolution 21790
Attachment 2: Vision Zero Action Plan
Attachment 3: Resolution 22184
Attachment 4: City of Salinas Crosswalk Policy
RESOLUTION No. _______ (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION TO: 1) AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW CIP ACCOUNT NAMED, “MAIN STREET AT LAMAR STREET PEDESTRIAN
ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT”; 2) AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF HIGHWAY

SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $247,500.00; 3) AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEASURE X (2510) APPROPRIATION OF UP TO $27,500.00 AND USE OF MEASURE X (2510) FUND

BALANCE AS MATCHING FUNDS FOR MAIN STREET AT LAMAR STREET PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT; AND 4)AUTHORIZE THE PUBLIC

WORKS DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ALL AGREEMENTS AND ANY REQUIRED

PAPERWORK WITH CALTRANS FOR THE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT PROGRAM.

WHEREAS, on September 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the City of Salinas Vision Zero Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the plan identified the intersection of North Main Street at Lamar Street as having the highest number of pedestrian-involved collisions for any unsignalized intersections in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City submitted an application for grant funding to enhance the crosswalk, and the project was selected to receive $247,500.00 with a 10% local match; and WHEREAS, the City will need to enter into grant agreements or submit paperwork to Caltrans for the grant funding, and staff recommends that the Council authorize the director to execute all agreements and any required paperwork with Caltrans for the Highway Safety Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, 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).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL approves a Resolution authorizing the establishment of a new CIP Account named, “Main Street at Lamar Street Pedestrian Enhancements Project” with an appropriation of $275,000; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves a Resolution authorizing the acceptance of Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant funds in the amount of $247,500; and
.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves a Resolution authorizing a transfer of $247,500 from the Special Construction Assistance - Federal & State Fund (5201) to the CIP Fund (5800) for the Project and corresponding revenue budget; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves a Resolution authorizing a transfer of $27,500 from the Measure X (2510) Fund to the CIP Fund (5800) for the Project and use of Measure X (2510) fund balance as matching funds for Main Street at Lamar Street Pedestrian Enhancements Project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves a Resolution to Authorizing the Public Works Director to execute all agreements and any required paperwork with Caltrans for the Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant Program.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 2
nd day of May 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
_________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
1 RESOLUTION NO. 21790 (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF A VISION ZERO POLICY, SPECIFICALLY: A CLEAR GOAL OF ELIMINATING TRAFFIC FATALITIES AND SEVERE INJURIES ON CITY STREETS; BECOMING A

VISION ZERO COMMUNITY AND JOINING THE VISION ZERO NETWORK AND ALLOCATING $8,000 AS A LOCAL MATCH TO DEVELOP A VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN.

WHEREAS, on “Vision Zero” is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all; and WHEREAS, the City of Salinas can become a Vision Zero Community and join the Vision Zero Network by meeting the following criteria: 1) Have a clear goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries has been set; 2) The Mayor has publicly, officially committed to Vision Zero. 3) A Vision Zero plan or strategy is in place, or the Mayor has committed to doing so in clear time frame. 4) Key departments are engaged; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends the allocation of $8,000 as a local match to develop a Vision Zero Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, at its January 2020 meeting, the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend to Council that the City Council approve a Resolution adopting a Vision Zero Policy and allocating $8,000 as a local match to develop a Vision Zero Action Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALINAS: the adoption of a Vision Zero Policy, a clear goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and sever injuries on city streets; becoming a vision zero community and joining the vision zero network and allocating $8,000 as a local match to develop a vision zero action plan.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 11th day of February 2020 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: Barrera, Cromeenes, Davis, De La Rosa, McShane and Mayor Gunter NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Villegas
ABSTAIN: None
APPROVED:
_________________
Joe Gunter, Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: 87A30F14-885A-458D-9AF2-121AC9D292CF 2 ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 87A30F14-885A-458D-9AF2-121AC9D292CF

RESOLUTION NO. 22184 (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE SALINAS VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN.

WHEREAS, City Council passed a Resolution adopting a Vision Zero Policy, which set a clear goal of eliminating fatal and severe injuries collisions; and WHEREAS, the Vision Zero Action Plan is a data driven approach, which utilizes historical collision data in order to identify collision patterns and trends; and WHEREAS, high frequencies of collisions led to identifying emphasis areas where the City can prioritize a response and recommend actionable strategies with the goal of eliminating severe injury and fatal crashes; and
WHEREAS, the Vision Zero Action Plan is the City’s play book to achieve this goal; and WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, at its July 8, 2021 meeting, the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend to Council that the City Council approve a Resolution adopting the Salinas Vision Zero Action Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Salinas that the Salinas Vision Zero Action Plan is hereby adopted.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 14th day of September 2021 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: Barrera, Cromeenes, González, Osornio, Rocha, McShane, and Mayor Craig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None APPROVED:
___________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: F0AEC8BA-B127-41C0-BAD0-5DBAEF366FBA Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
Prepared for:

City of Salinas
June 2014
SJ11_1252

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLICY CONTEXT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 California MUTCD, Section 3B. 18.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
17 TABLE 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 3:

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

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

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

Level 1
$20/LF4

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
19 TABLE 3:

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

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

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

Level 1 $130/LF6

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
20 TABLE 3:

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

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

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

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

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

Level 2 $4,000/EA

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

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

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

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

TABLE 4:

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

Various striping patterns are available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
23 TABLE 5:

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

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

Level 2 $50,000/EA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preferred $130/LF13

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
30 TABLE 6:

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

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

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

Preferred $4,000/ea

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

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

Preferred $25,000/EA15

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

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

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

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

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

Enhanced $140/LF17

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
33 TABLE 6:

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

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

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
34 TABLE 7:

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

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

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

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

Preferred $7.50/LF

19 Cost includes both lines of crossing.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
35 TABLE 7:

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

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

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

A smooth, non-slip surface is
preferable.

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

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

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

Preferred $500/EA

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

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

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

Preferred N/A22

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

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

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

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

Enhanced $2,500/EA

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
39 TABLE 8:

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

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

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

Enhanced N/A24

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

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

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

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

Enhanced $2,00026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 9:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
54 TABLE 9:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 11:

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 12:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
65 Figure 6: Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions for School-Age Children Occurring within ¼-Mile of Schools City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-279, Version: 1
Clean California Grant Application for AMOR Salinas Education and Outreach Approve a Resolution authorizing staff to apply for the Clean California Local Grant Program Cycle 2 funding for up to $750,000 for AMOR Salinas education and outreach and authorizing acceptance of the grant if awarded to the City.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 2, 2023
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION
FROM: STEVEN S. CARRIGAN, CITY MANAGER
BY: SOPHIA ROME, COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER
TITLE: CLEAN CALIFORNIA GRANT APPLICATION FOR AMOR

SALINAS EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution (1) authorizing staff to apply for Clean California Local Grant Program Cycle 2 funding for up to $750,000 for AMOR Salinas education and outreach; (2) authorizing acceptance of the grant if awarded to the City of Salinas (City); and (3) authorizing establishment of appropriations and corresponding revenue budget, if grant funds are awarded.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council approve a Resolution authorizing staff to apply for Clean California Local Grant Program Cycle 2 funding for up to $750,000 for AMOR Salinas education and outreach and authorizing acceptance of the grant if awarded to the City.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City launched the AMOR Salinas movement in 2020 to address concerns about an increase in litter and debris throughout the City. Heading into year three of AMOR Salinas, the City is seeking to expand education efforts to foster a culture of community commitment to volunteering and keeping the environment clean. The Clean California Local Grant Program (CCLGP) will expand the City’s capacity and increase available resources to support education and outreach efforts over the next two years.

BACKGROUND:

During the first year of the pandemic, there were increasing concerns regarding the amount of litter and debris accumulating across the City. Through the formation of the Litter & Debris Subcommittee, the City introduced the AMOR Salinas movement designed to address the need for citywide beautification, engage the community and partners, and focus education efforts to foster a culture of commitment to citywide beautification, increasing volunteerism, and keeping our environment clean.

Page | 2
Year one of AMOR Salinas was focused on immediate need for beautification and increasing volunteerism. Moving into year two, the City committed resources to growing awareness and marketing for AMOR Salinas. The City has increased the number of City-led volunteer clean-ups and has more than doubled the number of volunteers in the City’s database that have participated in City-led clean-ups through these AMOR Salinas efforts. There have been a growing number of partner and community-led clean-ups as well that are increasing the impact and reach of the AMOR Salinas movement.

The CCLGP will allow the City to continue to grow the AMOR Salinas movement, bring more awareness to AMOR Salinas, and focus on meaningful and impactful education within the community, including youth education and engagement. This grant application will include:
 AMOR Salinas banners along main corridors across the City  At least one AMOR Salinas art piece at City Hall with consideration for other AMOR Salinas art placement in public spaces
 Partnership with SUBA to support the Alisal Ambassador program  Additional City-led clean-ups along corridors, including supplies and materials  Education, outreach, and marketing materials for events  Education events at schools
 Part time staff support for AMOR Salinas education and outreach CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This grant aligns with the Council Strategic goals as follows:
 Economic Development
 Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability
 Youth and Seniors
DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Page | 3
There was coordination with the Administration, Community Development, and Library and Community Services departments.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no significant impact to the General Fund. For an award of up to $750,000, the City will be responsible for up to $93,750 (12.5%). Funds will be appropriated and available in the Communications (Administration) annual operating budget in for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, as well as potential partnering with Community Development and Library and Community Services as this project aligns with Alisal Vibrancy Plan implementation and public art.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

CLEAN CALIFORNIA GRANT APPLICATION FOR AMOR SALINAS EDUCATION

AND OUTREACH
WHEREAS, the City launched the AMOR Salinas movement in 2020 to address concerns about an increase in litter and debris throughout the City of Salinas (City); and WHEREAS, heading into year three of AMOR Salinas, the City is seeking to expand education efforts to foster a culture of community commitment to volunteering and keeping the environment clean; and
WHEREAS, the Clean California Local Grant Program (CCLGP) will expand the City’s capacity and increase available resources to support education and outreach efforts over the next two years; and
WHEREAS, the CCLGP will allow the City to continue to grow the AMOR Salinas movement, bring more awareness to AMOR Salinas, and focus on meaningful and impactful education within the community, including youth education and engagement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council authorizes staff to apply for Clean California Local Grant Program Cycle 2 funding for up to $750,000 for AMOR Salinas education and outreach, authorizes acceptance of the grant if awarded to the City of Salinas, and authorizes establishment of appropriations and corresponding revenue budget, if grant funds are awarded.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 2nd day of May, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
_______________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Page | 2
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-280, Version: 1
Organic Materials Direct Service Provider Agreement with Atlas Organics Approve a Resolution to approve an organic materials direct service provider agreement between the City of Salinas and Atlas Organics.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 2, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ADAM SPAULDING, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PLANNER
TITLE: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN ORGANIC MATERIALS DIRECT

SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF

SALINAS, AND ATLAS ORGANICS
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution to approve an organic materials direct service provider agreement between the City of Salinas and Atlas Organics.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Service Agreement Revision: After approval of Council, but prior to final execution by Atlas Organics, the previously approved Agreement was requested to be updated to only include the two contractually obligated parties, the City of Salinas and Atlas Organics. Below is a restatement of the Staff Report from the submitted and approved Resolution from April 4, 2023.

In an effort to support the development of organic material recovery and processing facilities throughout the State, a provision in SB 1383 requires that each jurisdiction be responsible for procuring organic material from these vendors (proportionate to its population). To ensure compliance each jurisdiction must provide CalRecycle with a signed Direct Service Provider Agreement with an organic processor for the purchase of these mandated materials or for the associated credits which can be allocated to the jurisdiction.

Over the next three years the City of Salinas will be responsible for achieving 100% compliance with its procurement target. In 2023 however the City is only responsible for 30% of its procurement allocation, representing either 3,844.8 tons of mulch or 2,229.98 tons of compost.

The City, through Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority secured a SB 1383 Implementation Support Grant that will cover the associated fees for compliance with the 30% threshold in 2023 with no impact or additional revenue required.

Page | 2
BACKGROUND:

Last year the State, acknowledging that since SB 1383 is an unfunded state mandate passed AB 1985 which allowed each jurisdiction up to three-years to fully phase-in organic procurement compliance (30% in 2023, 65% in 2024, and 100% in 2025).

CalRecycle rightfully understood that there would be financial challenges facing jurisdictions in their efforts to comply with SB 1383 implementation, (including organic material procurement purchasing) and established a grant to support SB 1383 adoption. The City, through the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority secured grant funding in part to offset these initial procurement costs.

In 2023, with the adoption of AB 1985, the City of Salinas is only responsible for procuring 30% of its overall target which can be achieved through the purchase/allocation of either 3,844.8 tons of mulch or 2,229.98 tons of compost.

The Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority has worked with Atlas Organics (the organics processor at Johnson Canyon Landfill) to secure reduced pricing for its member agencies at a rate of $8 per cubic yard of mulch or $12.50 per cubic yard of compost. 2023 Procurement Target of 30%
Procurement Target 30% Totals
Member Agency
Mulch (Tons)
Compost (Tons)
Salinas 3,844.80 2,229.98
Soledad 586.80 340.34
King City 359.40 208.45
Gonzales 203.70 118.15
Greenfield 441.60 256.13
County (SVR area)
819.90 475.54
DISCUSSION:

Current grant funding will cover the organic material procurement costs for 2023. However, since procurement targets are being phased-in : 30% for 2023 and 65% for 2024 and 100% in 2025, the allocated funding for procurement will not sustain the City for full compliance in 2024 or for any years beyond. The City will need to identify either alternative uses for current funding or establish Page | 3
measures in future solid waste rate adjustments to ensure the ability to comply with the organic material procurement component of SB 1383.

Beginning in 2025, the City will need to budget for the annual costs at the 100% procurement target (i.e. 7,433 tons compost), Those annual procurement costs are currently estimated at approximately $185,825 (this number only includes the purchase of material, or associated credit but does not include any costs for transportation or labor that would be needed if the City would want to utilize the material for City programs). The City additionally has the ability to explore alternative direct service provider agreements where better rates may be available, or to explore alternative energy procurement that is derived from organics recovery (all of which can be utilized to comply with the procurement target established in SB 1383).

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) per Guidelines Section 15378.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Compliance with SB 1383 and its associated organic material procurement target supports the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This effort further supports the City of Salinas 2022-2025 Strategic Plan Goals and Strategies including Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability.

DEPARTMENT COORDINATION:

This agenda item will be coordinated primarily by the Department of Public Works, but future consideration or continuation of this initial Service Agreement (ending in December of 2023) will also involve communication and discussions with both the Legal and Finance Departments.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no direct impact to the City for FY 23-24, as grant funding will offset any fees or charges the City will incur.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Agreement between the City of Salinas and Atlas Organics RESOLUTION NO. ___________ (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALINAS TO

APPROVE AN ORGANIC MATERIALS DIRECT SERVICE PROVIDER

AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SALINAS, AND ATLAS ORGANICS
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq. authorize the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to administer various grant programs (grants) in furtherance of the State of California’s (state) efforts to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste generated in the state thereby preserving landfill capacity and protecting public health and safety and the environment; and
WHEREAS, CalRecycle administered a one-time grant program meant to provide aid in the implementation of regulations adopted by CalRecycle; and WHEREAS, The City, in partnership with Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority submitted and was awarded a SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant to assist the City in the implementation of regulation requirements associated with SB 1383, including organic material procurement costs; and
WHEREAS, The City of Salinas is entering into a contract with Atlas Organics to be the City’s direct service provider of Organic Materials in compliance with SB 1383; and WHEREAS, The contract will remain into effect until December 31, 2023. The term of the Agreement may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties for three (3) optional, one (1) year extensions; and
WHEREAS, City Council approved the execution of a Direct Service Provider Agreement with Atlas Organics and the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority on April 4th, 2023, this revised agreement establishes only the City and Atlas Organics as signators; and The contract will remain into effect until December 31, 2023. The term of the Agreement may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties for three (3) optional, one (1) year extensions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Salinas that the Organic Materials Direct Service Provider Agreement between the member agencies of the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority, City of Salinas, and Atlas Organics is hereby approved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall supersede any prior resolutions related to the approval of the Organic Materials Direct Service Provider Agreement.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 2nd day of May, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

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

ORGANIC MATERIALS DIRECT SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SALINAS, A MEMBER AGENCY OF THE SALINAS VALLEY SOLID

WASTE AUTHORITY, AND ATLAS ORGANICS
THIS AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 2 day of MAY, 2023 (“Effective Date”) by and between the City of Salinas, a member of the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority (“Member Agency”) and Atlas Organics CU11, LLC (Processor). The Processor and Member Agency may be collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.” NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Purpose of Agreement: This Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions pursuant to which the Parties will cooperate to incentivize residents and solid waste rate payers of the Member Agency (Public Purchasers) to acquire recovered organic waste product in the form of finished compost (“Compost”) or mulch (“Mulch”) from Processor on behalf of the Member Agency to assist them in complying with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 14, sections 18993.1 through 18993.4 (“SB 1383 Regulations”).

2. Term: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and remain in effect until December 31, 2023. The term of this Agreement may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties for three (3) optional, one (1) year extensions.

3. Services: Processor shall provide to Public Purchasers a discount which is equal to current Member Agency Product Pricing (per cubic yard) for the purchase of Compost and/or Mulch, as applicable, as set forth in Exhibit A. Processor shall provide the Member Agency, or their designated representative, monthly reports evidencing procurement of and payment for the Compost or Mulch for the Public Purchaser for annual reporting purposes. The reports shall include date of purchase, the name of each individual, entity, operation, or facility from whom the Compost was procured, and the amount in tons or cubic yards purchased, and type of Compost and/or Mulch purchased. Processor will charge by the cubic yard. For budgeting purposes, the Member Agency can use a conversion factor of 1.4 cubic yards of compost for 1 ton of compost and 4 cubic yards of mulch for 1 ton of mulch. Compost or Mulch purchased as a part of this agreement shall not exceed combined annual jurisdiction procurement targets for the respective Member Agency, as set forth by CalRecycle and listed in Exhibit B.

4. Payment: Processor will submit monthly invoices to the Member Agency for reimbursement at the specified per cubic yard rate based on the current pricing listed in Exhibit A. All invoices shall be payable net forty-five (45) days of receipt.

5. Warranties: Processor warrants and covenants that all Compost or Mulch at the time of delivery conforms with the specifications in this Agreement, SB 1383 Regulations, particularly 14 CCR §§ 18993.1-18993.4, and complies with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the manufacture, production and sale of Compost or Mulch.

6. Indemnity: Each Party (the “Indemnifying Party”) agrees to indemnify and hold the other party, including the parties’ parents, affiliates, and subsidiaries and each of their officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “Indemnified Party”), harmless from and against all loss or damage, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred by the Indemnified Party as a result of any claims related to or arising out of the Indemnifying Party’s performance of its duties hereunder, unless such loss or damage shall arise from the negligence or the intentional acts of the Indemnified Party. In the foregoing sentence, the words “loss or damage” include, but are not limited to, loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from any actions or omissions of any employee or authorized representative of either party.

7. Limitation of Liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, EXCEPT IN the CASE OF FRAUD, under no circumstances shall EITHER PARTY be liable to THE OTHER PARTY, ITS PARENTS, AFFILIATES AND SUBSIDIARIES and EACH OF THEIR OFFICERS, MANAGERS, EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS, OR AGENTS for any LOSS OF

PROFITS, OR ANY SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, HOWEVER

CAUSED, KNOWN OR UNKNOWN, ANITICIPATED OR UNANTICIPATED, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE

THAT THESE LIMITATIONS ON POTENTIAL DAMAGES WERE AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN SETTING CONSIDERATION UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.

8. Governing Law, Venue: This Agreement shall be deemed to have been made in the County of Monterey, California. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The Parties agree that any action or proceeding to enforce or relating to this Agreement shall be brought exclusively in the federal or state courts located in Monterey County, California, and the Parties hereto consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them by any such courts for purposes of any such action or proceeding.

9. Independent Purchaser: A Public Purchaser shall act as an independent Purchaser in the performance of this Agreement and in no respect shall a Public Purchaser be considered an agent or employee of the Member Agency. No provisions of this Agreement shall be intended to create a partnership or joint venture between a Public Purchaser, Processor, or the Member Agency and no Party shall have the power

to bind or obligate the other Parties, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement.

10. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and any agreement or representation with respect to the same or the obligations of any other Party with respect to the same which is not expressly provided in this Agreement or in a written document which is signed by the Party to be charged, shall be null and void.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have hereunto set their hands on the first day date above written.

Member Agency:

By:

City of Gonzales
Date: ___________________________
Approved as to Form
By:

Date: ___________________________
Processor:

Atlas Organics CU11, LLC
By:

Date: ____________________________

Member Agency:

By:

City of King
Date: ___________________________
Approved as to Form
By:

Date: ___________________________
Processor:

Atlas Organics CU11, LLC
By:

Date: ____________________________

Member Agency:

By:

City of Greenfield
Date: ___________________________
Approved as to Form
By:

Date: ___________________________
Processor:

Atlas Organics CU11, LLC
By:

Date: ____________________________

Member Agency:

By:

City of Salinas
Date: ___________________________
Approved as to Form
By:

Date: ___________________________
Processor:

Atlas Organics CU11, LLC
By:

Date: ____________________________

Member Agency:

By:

City of Soledad
Date: ___________________________
Approved as to Form
By:

Date: ___________________________
Processor:

Atlas Organics CU11, LLC
By:

Date: ____________________________

Member Agency:

By:

County of Monterey
Date: ___________________________
Approved as to Form
By:

Date: ___________________________
Processor:

Atlas Organics CU11, LLC
By:

Date: ____________________________

Exhibit A
Member Agency Product Pricing
Mulch: $8.00 per cubic yard
Compost: $12.50 per cubic yard

Exhibit B
Member Agency SB 1383 Procurement Targets
Total Organic
Waste Mulch Compost
Salinas 160,206 12,816 12,816 7,433
Soledad 24,454 1,956 1,956 1,134
King City 14,977 1,198 1,198 695
Gonzales 8,490 679 679 394
Greenfield 18,402 1,472 1,472 854
Unincorp County^ 34,158 2,733 2,733 1,585
TOTALS: 20,854 12,095
Population*
SVR Member
Agency
Procurement Targets*
(Tons) Conversion Factors:
1 ton of organic waste = 0.58 ton of compost
1 ton of organic waste = 1 ton of mulch
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-282, Version: 1
San Juan Grade Road Sidewalk and Street Light Improvements Project Approve a Resolution authorizing the establishment of a new CIP account named, “San Juan Grade Road Sidewalk and Street Light Improvements Project”; and authorize the acceptance of Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant funds in the amount of $1,344,690.00; and authorize the establishment of a Measure X appropriation of up to $149,410.00 and use of fund balance as matching funds.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 2, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS P.E., L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ANDREW EASTERLING, TRAFFIC ENGINEER
TITLE: SAN JUAN GRADE ROAD SIDEWALK AND STREET LIGHT

IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to:
1) Authorize the establishment of a new CIP account named, “San Juan Grade Road Sidewalk and Street Light Improvements Project” with an appropriation of $1,494,100; 2) Authorize the acceptance of Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant funds in the amount of $1,344,690;
3) Authorize a transfer of $1,344,690 from the Special Construction Assistance - Federal & State Fund (5201) to the CIP Fund (5800) for the Project and corresponding revenue budget;
4) Authorize a transfer of $149,410 from the Measure X (2510) Fund to the CIP Fund (5800) for the Project and use of Measure X (2510) fund balance as matching funds for the Project; and
5) Authorize the Public Works Director to execute all agreements and any required paperwork with Caltrans for the Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant Program.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On September 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the City of Salinas Vision Zero Action Plan.

During the plan development San Juan Grade Road was identified as part of the High Injury Network within the City of Salinas. The City submitted an application for grant funding to enhance the crosswalk, and the project was selected to receive $1,344,690.00. The City will be responsible for $149,410.00 in matching funds.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Salinas adopted a Vision Zero Policy on February 11, 2020, and shortly after developed a Vision Zero Action Plan (Attachment 1) approved by Council Resolution No. 22184 on September 14, 2021. The Vision Zero Action Plan is rooted in the understanding that traffic deaths Page | 2
are preventable. The Vision Zero Action Plan used a systems-based approach and the application data to identify emphasis areas, priorities and actionable strategies with the goal of eliminating severe injury and fatal crashes.

The Vision Zero Action Plan compiled 10 years (2009-2018) of collision data and created maps using geographic information systems (GIS) technology to display and filter collision data to help illustrate spatial patterns and trends. This data-driven analysis helped reveal collision trends and patterns in collision type, driver factors, roadway features, vehicle factors or environmental conditions. Trends in the data helped identify the High Injury Network (HIN) and reveal emphasis areas where a higher frequency of collisions can be evaluated to achieve the goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries most effectively.

During the plan development San Juan Grade Road was identified as part of the High Injury Network within the City of Salinas. The Vision Zero Action Plan only included data between 2009-2018, however more recently there were two fatal collisions in close proximity to each other on the corridor between 2018 and 2020. One of the recent collisions involved a pedestrian walking at night. This data suggests that street lighting and sidewalk improvements may be an effective countermeasure for the specific collision trends.

The City is working on a pavement rehabilitation project on San Juan Grade Road (CIP 9080). As part of this project the City was planning to install new sidewalks where there are currently gaps in the network. The City was able to repackage some of the existing plans to separate the pavement work and safety improvements components into a competitive Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant application. The City was successful in its application and was selected to receive $1,344,690.00 in grant funds with a 10% match. The grant funds will go towards installing sidewalks, ADA ramps, streetlights, intersection lights, and radar feedback signs.

Following the acceptance of grant funding, City staff would begin to develop plans and specifications. The project would come back to City Council to approve plans and specifications before going to construction. Additionally, Caltrans will review the project documents before authorizing the use of grant funds for construction.

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:

This item supports the City Council’s goals of “Public Safety” and “Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability”.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Public Works Department and Finance Department manage the project accounting. The Public Works Department manages construction contract, inspection, and final acceptance of construction projects.

Page | 3
FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no impact to the General Fund. The total project cost is estimated to be $1,494,100.00.

The Highway Safety Improvement Program requires a 10% match. If accepted, the grant amount would be $1,344,690.00, and the City would be required to contribute $149,410.00 as a local match. Staff recommends the establishment of a Measure X (2510) appropriation of up to $149,410.00 and use of Measure X (2510) fund balance as matching funds.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1: Vision Zero Action Plan
Attachment 2: Project Location Map
RESOLUTION No. _______ (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION TO: 1) AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW CIP ACCOUNT NAMED, “SAN JUAN GRADE ROAD SIDEWALK AND STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT”; 2) AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF HIGHWAY

SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,344,690.00; AND 3) AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEASURE X (2510) APPROPRIATION OF UP TO $149,410.00 AND USE OF MEASURE X (2510) FUND

BALANCE AS MATCHING FUNDS FOR THE SAN JUAN GRADE ROAD SIDEWALK AND STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.

WHEREAS, on September 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the City of Salinas Vision Zero Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, during the plan development San Juan Grade Road was identified as part of the High Injury Network within the City of Salinas; and WHEREAS, the City submitted an application for grant funding to enhance the crosswalk, and the project was selected to receive $1,344,690.00; and WHEREAS, the City will be responsible for $149,410.00 in matching funds; and WHEREAS, 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).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL authorizes the establishment of a new CIP account named, “San Juan Grade Road Sidewalk and Street Light Improvements Project” with an appropriation of $1,494,100; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council authorizes the acceptance of Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant funds in the amount of $1,344,690; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves a Resolution authorizing a transfer of $1,344,690 from the Special Construction Assistance - Federal & State Fund (5201) to the CIP Fund (5800) for the Project and corresponding revenue budget; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council authorizes a transfer of $149,410 from the Measure X (2510) Fund to the CIP Fund (5800) for the Project and use of Measure X (2510) fund balance as matching funds for the San Juan Grade Road Sidewalk and Street Light Improvements Project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves a Resolution to Authorizing the Public Works Director to execute all agreements and any required paperwork with Caltrans for the Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant Program.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 2nd day of May 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

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

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-301, Version: 1
FY 22-23 Workforce Allocation Adjustment and Reclassification Approve a Resolution adjusting the workforce allocation for the Community Development Department and Police Department to include a total of three limited term Community Outreach Assistants and the reclassification of one Community Development Analyst to Management Analyst.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/26/2023
powered by Legistar™

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
_________________________________________________________________________________ DATE: May 2, 2023
Department: HUMAN RESOURCES
FROM: Marina Horta-Gallegos, Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: FY 22-23 WORKFORCE ALLOCATION ADJUSTMENT AND

RECLASSIFICATION
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

It is recommended that the City Council approve a Resolution adjusting the workforce allocation for the Community Development Department and Police Department to include a total of three limited term Community Outreach Assistants and the reclassification of one Community Development Analyst to Management Analyst.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution adjusting the workforce for the Community Development Department to include one limited term Community Outreach Assistant and two limited term Community Outreach Assistants in the Police Department. Additionally, staff request that the City Council approve the reclassification of one incumbent Community Development Analyst in the Housing Division of the Community Development Department.

BACKGROUND:

The Community Development Department Advanced Planning and Project Implementation division requests an adjustment to the FY 22-23 workforce to include the addition of one limited term Community Outreach Assistant. This position will support increased outreach and engagement on the General Plan update, including the Climate Action Plan, Public Safety, Environmental Justice, and Housing elements.

The Police Department requests an adjustment to its FY 22-23 workforce to include two limited term, grant funded Community Outreach Assistants. These positions will support community outreach and youth diversion programs through a California Violence Intervention and Prevention (Cal VIP) grant.

The goal of these new programs is to reduce violence, prevent crime, improve community safety, and support intervention activities and services, among other things.

Lastly, staff recommend that the City Council approve the reclassification of one incumbent Community Development Analyst in the Housing and Community Development division of the Community Development Department. The City engaged the services of Regional Government Services to conduct a classification study of an incumbent in the position of Community Development Analyst. The findings indicate that the duties and complexity of the assigned work are above the level of the current classification and indicate that reclassification to Management Analyst is warranted.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

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

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Human Resources Department coordinated this effort with the Community Development and the Police Department.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Grant funding will be used to fund the three limited term Community Outreach Assistants. The Police Department will use funds from the California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) grant and the Community Development will use the General Plan CIP account. There are no significant budget impacts in the FY 22-23. The Department will not require new money for this reclassification.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. _________ (N.C.S.)
RESOLUTION APPROVING FY 22-23 WORKFORCE ALLOCATION ADJUSTMENT AND

RECLASSIFICATION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALINAS that the workforce for the Community Development Department will reflect the addition of one limited term Community Outreach Assistant and the workforce for the Police Department will reflect the addition of two limited term grant funded Community Outreach Assistants. The reclassification of the incumbent Community Development Analyst is approved.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 2
nd day of May 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
____________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-306, Version: 1
Purchase of Network Systems Equipment
Approve a resolution authorizing the purchase and installation of network firewalls from Cadence Inc., in an amount not to exceed $189,000.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/26/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 2, 2023
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION
FROM: JIM PIA, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
BY: ERIC SANDOVAL, GIS ADMINISTRATOR
TITLE: PURCHASE OF NETWORK SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution authorizing the purchase and installation of network firewalls from Cadence Inc., in an amount not to exceed $189,000.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Salinasis updating its network security systems as recommended in the 2022 IT Master Plan. This is required considering the age and performance shown by the current equipment on the system. Cadence Inc. is the City’s current network support contractor. The City’s other certified vendors are unable to do the work.

BACKGROUND:

The aging of technology equipment can cause outages, slowness and consume resources unnecessarily. The 2022 IT Master identified and recommended the upgrade of the current system components to improve security and access. To address these issues, the City Council approved and established an additional appropriation of $125,000 to the budget as part of the mid-year budget process for fiscal year 2022-23.

The current resolution is the first step in improving secure access for Staff using technology resources onsite and remotely. The purchase and installation of this equipment will allow Information Systems staff to improve digital access for all staff, matching industry standards and meet minimum security needs for the next 5 to 7 years.

Even though funding has already been budgeted and approved, City Council approval is required to continue the procurement process due to the cost of the equipment exceeding Department authority. Detailed information related to the actual services are sensitive. Report details are limited to ensure the integrity of our technology systems.

Page | 2
CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This request supports City Council’s Strategic Goals and Strategies of Effective and Culturally Responsive Government, by ensuring that the information systems can support City programs, projects, and City services for the community.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Finance department will continue to work with all affected departments to minimize downtime during the equipment replacement.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Funding for this purchase was approved by Council at mid-year and will be purchased from the Non-Departmental account of up to $189,000. There is no recommended action pertaining to the transfer of monies between accounts or for new appropriations.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution
Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF NETWORK SYSTEMS

EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council accepted and established in the 2022-2023 budget an appropriation of $125,000 further supplement the updating of network systems; and WHEREAS, this expenditure will greatly improve the performance, access and security of computers used by the staff and allow for a much-improved service to the community; and WHEREAS, this expenditure Information Systems staff to improve digital access and security for all staff, matching industry standards and meeting minimum needs for the next 5 to 7 years; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Salinas Municipal Code section 12-27 the Salinas City Council hereby authorizes the purchase and the installation of network firewalls in an amount not to exceed $189,000.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 2
nd day of May, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
_______________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-313, Version: 1
a. 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 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 NonManagement Employees, and Department Directors. b. 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 NonManagement Employees, Confidential Management Employees, and Department Directors.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/26/2023
powered by Legistar™