Salinas City Council
June 13, 2023

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/8/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 13, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PE, PLS, DIRECTOR
BY: ADRIANA ROBLES, PE, CFM, CITY ENGINEER
TITLE: 2023 EMERGENCY SINKHOLE REPAIR
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution authorizing procurement of emergency repair services pursuant to Salinas Municipal Code Section 12-24 for the 2023 Storm Sinkhole Emergency Repairs and authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract and amendment with Granite Rock Company in an amount not to exceed of $300,000.00.

BACKGROUND:

This year’s storms have created unprecedented emergencies with city facilities. Since January, two local emergency proclamations have been made due to extreme weather. Since January 10, 2023, a total of nine sinkholes have been reported to the Public Works Department. The first at the Salinas Fairways Golf Course was repaired under a different contract.

Following the February 7, 2023 Council meeting during which Council denied appropriation of funds for emergency repair of sinkholes, staff conducted an informal solicitation of services with three local construction firms. Granite Rock Company was selected to provide emergency repair services of the sinkholes on a time and material basis. Pursuant to Salinas Municipal Code Section 12-24, on March 1, 2023 the City Manager authorized an emergency agreement with Granite Rock Company for repair of sinkholes at various locations for $100,000.00.

When the repair began in April on the Sanborn Rd/E Alisal St sinkhole, staff observed that the damage at that intersection was more extensive than the Salinas Fairways sinkhole. Repair of this sinkhole would entail installation of a new storm drain line, removal and replacement of damaged pavement and extensive traffic control. Staff estimated the effort to exceed the $100,000 authorized by the City Manager.

On April 19, 2023, the City Manager authorized an amendment to the contract that increased the terms of the agreement to $300,000. By then staff had been notified of two additional sinkholes (W Market St and E Blanco Rd) that had been formed. To date, Granite Rock has completed repair of two of the sinkholes (Sanborn Rd/E Alisal St and E Blanco Rd) for a total of $184,021.45.

Invoices will be paid following approval from Council.

The table below summarized the status of all known sinkholes.

Page | 2

SINKHOLE

LOCATION
DATE

REPORTED
REPAIR

COMPLETED CONTRACTOR COST
Salinas Fairways
Golf Course1 1/10/2023 1/24/2023 The Don Chapin Co. $15,217.34 Freedom Parkway/
N Sanborn Rd 1/31/2023 Pending Granite Rock Co. TBD
N Sanborn Rd/
Garner Rd 1/31/2023 Pending Granite Rock Co. TBD
Sanborn Rd/
E Alisal St 1/31/2023 4/14/2023 Granite Rock Co. $150,803.57 W Market St 3/23/2023 Pending2 Granite Rock Co. TBD
E Blanco Rd 3/27/2023 5/11/2023 Granite Rock Co. $33,217.88 Buckhorn Dr/
N Sanborn Rd 5/12/2023 5/24/2023 N/A N/A3
Soledad St 6/1/2023 6/5/2023 N/A N/A4
Veteran’s Park 6/2/2023 Pending TBD TBD
CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This project addresses the current City Council’s Goals of Operational Efficiency and Public Safety.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Public Works Department collaborated with Legal, Administration and Finance Departments during this emergency procurement process.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The project is funded through 3911.50.8180 – Street Repair/Traffic Safety. Sufficient funds exist in the ARPA account to make the needed repairs.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution

1 Sinkhole repair paid through a different agreement.
2 Repair pending Caltrans encroachment permit.
3 Sinkhole related with work by others. Repair costs paid by contractor. 4 Sinkhole related with work in the area by others. Repair costs paid by utility company.

Page | 3
RESOLUTION NO.____________(N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY SINK HOLE REPAIRS
WHEREAS, Salinas experienced unprecedented weather events during the winter and spring months of 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Salinas City Council declared a local emergency twice during those months due to weather; and
WHEREAS, since January 10, 2023, a total of nine sinkholes have been reported to the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, repair of the sinkholes was deemed an emergency to protect public safety; and
WHEREAS, repair of the sinkholes was prioritized based on size of the sinkhole and impact to the general public; and
WHEREAS, City solicited emergency repair services from three local construction contractors; and
WHEREAS, City staff selected Granite Rock Company to provide emergency repair services for the sinkholes; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 12-24, allows procurement on an emergency basis by the City Manager prior to approval by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council authorizes procurement of emergency repair services pursuant to Salinas Municipal Code 12-24 for the 2023 Storm Sinkhole Repair; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the City of Salinas to execute a contract and amendment with Granite Rock Company for an amount not to exceed $300,000.00.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of June 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

Page | 4
______________________________
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#23-285, Version: 1
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Services with Benitez Security Services, Inc.

Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Services #22ARPA04 with Benitez Security, Inc. to increase the compensation amount by $420,000 to total amount not to exceed $906,000 and extend the term to March 31, 2024.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/8/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 13, 2023
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: LISA BRINTON, DIRECTOR
THROUGH: ROD POWELL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR – ACTING
BY: FRANCISCO BRAMBILA, MANAGEMENT ANALYST

MARIA CAMBRON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST
TITLE: AMENDMENT No.2 TO AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
#22ARPA04 WITH BENITEZ SECURITY SERVICES, INC.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Services #22ARPA04 with Benitez Security, Inc. to increase the compensation amount by $420,000 to a total amount not to exceed $906,000 and extend the term to March 31, 2024.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Prior to April 2023, the City had been operating an Emergency Motel Program (EMP) providing emergency shelter and housing navigation services at the County Inn in the City of Marina with supportive 24-hour security services provided by Benitez Security, Inc. (BSI). On April 1, 2023, the City relocated its EMP services, providers and supports, including security services, to its new location at the Steinbeck Lodge with an initial operating timeline through to March 31, 2024. The proposed amendment will increase the compensation amount by $420,000 to a total amount not to exceed $906,000 and extend the term to March 31, 2024.

BACKGROUND:

The City has been operating a successful EMP focused on the provision of emergency shelter and navigation to permanent housing since October 2021 with partial supportive funding from the County of Monterey (County). Initially, due to a lack of site options resulting from the City’s competitive H2A housing environment, the program operated out of the City of Marina. On March 21, 2023, Council authorized the execution of a one-year Room Rental Agreement with JS Inc. dba Steinbeck Lodge to transition the EMP program from its former Marina location to the Steinbeck Lodge at 109 John Street. Since the program’s inception, BSI has provided on-site security services. Initially through one of the EMP’s subrecipient service providers and later, in October 2022, through the original Agreement for Services executed in December 2022. In recognition of the acceptance of additional County funds, in December 2022, Council approved Page | 2
Amendment No.1 to Agreement for Services #22ARPA04 to extend the term through to June 30, 2023.

Shortly thereafter, in March 2023, Council authorized the execution of a one-year Room Rental Agreement with JS Inc. to allow the EMP to move to its current location at the Steinbeck Lodge.

In recognition of the program’s relocation, new operational term, and the availability of additional County funding, staff are now seeking to further amend Agreement for Services #22ARPA04 to incorporate additional funds and extend the term.

DISCUSSION:

In recognition of the EMPs recent move to its current Salinas site and a new annual operating cycle beginning April 1st, there is need to add an additional $420,000 in previously appropriated Project Roomkey Motel Program (County ARPA), Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF) and General Fund Homeless Services Coordination funding to support the program’s continued security model through to March 31, 2024. Amendment No. 2 increases the total not to exceed compensation amount to $906,00 and extends the term of the Agreement to March 31, 2024.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The proposed agreements will advance the City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025 Goals and Housing/Affordable Housing through continued provision of immediate housing opportunities supported by robust housing navigation leading to permanent housing placements.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This agenda item was prepared by and is solely administered by the Community Development Department Housing & Community Development Division with contributions from both the City Attorney and Finance Department.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Services #22ARPA04 with BSI will be funded by available appropriations including $70,000 of Project Roomkey Motel Program (County ARPA), $280,000 of Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF), and $70,000 of General Fund Homeless Services Coordination funds.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Services #22ARPA04 – Draft Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for Services #22ARPA04
Agreement for Services #22ARPA04
RESOLUTION NO. ____________ (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT No. 2 TO AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES #22ARPA04 WITH BENITEZ SECURITY SERVICES, INC.

WHEREAS, the City of Salinas (City) currently serves as the administrative entity for an Emergency Motel Program (EMP) jointly funded by the City and County of Monterey (County) to provide immediate housing to unhoused individuals; and
WHEREAS, On March 21, 2023, Council authorized the execution of a Room Rental Agreement with JS Inc. dba Steinbeck Lodge for the purpose of providing emergency shelter to unhoused City residents through March 31, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City and Benitez Security Services Inc. first entered into an Agreement for the Services #22ARPA04 to support the Salinas Motel Program effective January 1, 2023 with a total amount of compensation not to exceed $486,000 and term ending June 30, 2023; and WHEREAS, on April 6, 2023, the City and Benitez Security Services Inc. entered into Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for Services #22ARPA04 to extend the term through August 31, 2023.

WHEREAS, the City and Benitez Security Services, Inc. desire to further amend Agreement for Services #22ARPA04 to increase the compensation amount by $420,000 to a total not to exceed $906,000 and further extend the term through March 31, 2024.

WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Services #22ARPA04 with Benitez Security Services, Inc. will be funded by appropriations of City American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), Project Room Key Motel Program (County ARPA), Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF) and General Fund for Homeless Services Coordination 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 City Council of the City of Salinas that it hereby authorizes the City Manager or designee, for and on behalf of the City of Salinas, to execute Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Services #22ARPA04 with Benitez Security, Inc. to increase the compensation amount by $420,000 to a total amount not to exceed $906,000 and extend the term to March 31, 2024.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 13
th day of June 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

AMENDMENT No. 2

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALINAS
ANDBENITEZ SECURITY SERVICES, INC.

FOR

SECURITY SERVICES FOR THE SALINAS MOTEL PROGRAM
(FORMALLY KNOWN AS THE ARPA/PRK MOTEL PROGRAM)
Agreement No. 22ARPA04
This Amendment No. 2 is entered on May 16, 2023, between BENITEZ SECURITY SERVICES, INC. a California corporation (Hereinafter Contractor) and the CITY OF SALINAS, a California charter city and municipal corporation (City).

WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City and Benitez Security Services Inc. first entered into an Agreement for the Security Services for the Salinas Motel Program formally known as the ARPA/PRK Motel Program (Agreement) effective January 1, 2023, pursuant to which Benitez Security Inc. agreed to act as and provide certain services for compensation; and WHEREAS, the City and Benitez Security Services Inc. entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement to extend funding term through August 31, 2023.

WHEREAS, the City and Benitez Security Services Inc. desire to amend the Agreement to extend funding term through March 31, 2024, and increase the agreement by $420,000 for a total maximum compensation to $906,000.

NOW, THEREFORE, in mutual consideration of the terms and conditions set forth below, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Section 3 entitled "Term” is revised to read as follows:

The work under this Agreement shall commence on January 1st, 2023, and shall be completed by March 31st, 2024, unless City grants a written extension of time as set forth in Section 2 above. This Agreement may be extended only upon mutual written consent of the parties on a month-to-month basis and may be terminated only pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

2. First sentence of Section 4 entitled “Payment” is revised to read as follows:

City hereby agrees to pay and Contractor agrees to accept as full and fair consideration for the performance of this Agreement, a total amount of compensation not to exceed nine hundred and six thousand dollars ($906,000.00).

3. All terms, covenants and conditions stated in the Original Funding Agreement, and Amendment No. 1, which are not herein amended, remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 2 effective as

of the date shown above.

City of Salinas Grantee:

By: By:

Steven S. Carrigan., City Manager Jesus Benitez, Chief Executive Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
FUNDING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT No. 1

CITY OF SALINAS
AND
BENITEZ SECURITY SERVICES, INC.

FOR

SECURITY SERVICES FOR THE SALINAS MOTEL PROGRAM
(FORMALLY KNOWN AS THE ARPA/PRK MOTEL PROGRAM)
Agreement No. 22ARPA04
This Amendment No. 1 to the Original Funding Agreement is entered on April 6, 2023, between BENITEZ SECURITY SERVICES, INC. a California corporation (Hereinafter Contractor) and the CITY OF SALINAS, a California charter city and municipal corporation (City).

WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City and Benitez Security Services Inc. first entered into an Agreement for the Security Services for the Salinas Motel Program formally known as the ARPA/PRK Motel Program (Agreement) effective December 1, 2022, pursuant to which Benitez Security Inc. agreed to act as and provide certain services for compensation; and WHEREAS, the City and Benitez Security Services Inc. desire to amend the Agreement to extend funding term through August 31, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, in mutual consideration of the terms and conditions set forth below, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Section 3 entitled "Term” is revised to read as follows:

The work under this Agreement shall commence on January 1st, 2023, and shall be completed by August 31st, 2023, unless City grants a written extension of time as set forth in Section 2 above. This Agreement may be extended only upon mutual written consent of the parties on a month-to-month basis and may be terminated only pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

2. All terms, covenants and conditions stated in the Original Funding Agreement, which are not herein amended, remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 effective as of the date shown above.

City of Salinas Grantee:

By: By:

Steven S. Carrigan., City Manager Jesus Benitez, Chief Executive Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
-82:1547Ā.7;36893Ā0-*Ā+(!&.%!#Ȁ ./#Ȁ$"--Ȁ)+.-Ȁ)"%&'$.#%'+, FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SALINAS AND
BENITIEZ SECURITY SERVICES INC.
-7190436Ā.6:25782Ā/-)Ā.! !"(-#Ȁ.*'!Ȁ$$-"Ȁ* !Ȁ"%.&,-"$,+,$ This is an official document.

Do not make any changes to this document EXCEPT to modify your signature block on the last page as needed.
-7190436Ā.6:25782Ā/-)Ā.! !"(-#Ȁ.*'!Ȁ$$-"Ȁ* !Ȁ"%.&,-"$,+,$ Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 1 of 6
Benitez Security Services, Inc.

January 2023
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SALINAS
AND
BENITEZ SECURITY SERVICES, INC.

FOR

SECURITY SERVICES FOR THE ARPA/PRK MOTEL PROGRAM
Agreement Number: 22ARPA04
THIS AGREEMENT is executed this 1st day of December 2022, (“Agreement” or “Contract”) between the City of Salinas, a California Charter city and municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”) and Benitez Security Services, Inc., a California corporation (Hereinafter “Contractor”).

IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Scope. Contractor hereby agrees to provide the City, security services for the ARPA/PRK Motel Program under this Agreement, as more fully described in Attachment B – Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

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

3. Term. The work under this Agreement shall commence on January 1st, 2023, and shall be completed by June 30th, 2023, unless City grants a written extension of time as set forth in Section 2 above. This Agreement may be extended only upon mutual written consent of the parties on a month-to-month basis and may be terminated only pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

4. Payment. City hereby agrees to pay and Contractor agrees to accept as full and fair consideration for the performance of this Agreement, a total amount of compensation not to exceed four hundred eighty-six thousand dollars ($486,000.00). Contractor has no right of reimbursement for expenses under this Agreement. Compensation shall become due and payable 30 days after City’s approval of Contractor’s submission of monthly written invoices to the City.

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

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

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

7. Indemnification. Contractor shall hold harmless, defend at its own expense, and indemnify City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against all -7190436Ā.6:25782Ā/-)Ā.! !"(-#Ȁ.*'!Ȁ$$-"Ȁ* !Ȁ"%.&,-"$,+,$ Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 2 of 6
Benitez Security Services, Inc.

January 2023
liability, claims, damages, losses, and/or expenses including reasonable City attorney fees arising from all acts or omissions of Contractor or its officers, agents, or employees arising out of the performance of the work under this Contract, caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Contractor, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, except where caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF SALINAS CONTRACTOR
Steve Carrigan, City Manager Jesus Benitez, Chief Executive Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney, or
Rhonda Combs, Assistant City Attorney
-7190436Ā.6:25782Ā/-)Ā.! !"(-#Ȁ.*'!Ȁ$$-"Ȁ* !Ȁ"%.&,-"$,+,$ Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 3 of 6
Benitez Security Services, Inc.

January 2023
Attachment A
Insurance Requirements
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, and for three years thereafter, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, his/her/its officers, agents, representatives, employees, and/or subcontractors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations and automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the -7190436Ā.6:25782Ā/-)Ā.! !"(-#Ȁ.*'!Ȁ$$-"Ȁ* !Ȁ"%.&,-"$,+,$ Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 4 of 6
Benitez Security Services, Inc.

January 2023
Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, CG 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maintenance of Insurance
Maintenance of insurance by Contractor as specified shall in no way be interpreted as relieving Contractor of its indemnification obligations or any responsibility whatsoever and the Contractor -7190436Ā.6:25782Ā/-)Ā.! !"(-#Ȁ.*'!Ȁ$$-"Ȁ* !Ȁ"%.&,-"$,+,$ Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 5 of 6
Benitez Security Services, Inc.

January 2023
may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it deems necessary.

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

-7190436Ā.6:25782Ā/-)Ā.! !"(-#Ȁ.*'!Ȁ$$-"Ȁ* !Ȁ"%.&,-"$,+,$ Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 6 of 6
Benitez Security Services, Inc.

January 2023
Attachment B
Scope of Work
Schedule of Charges for Security Services and Equipment NUMBER OF SECURITY GUARDS: Three (3) (UNARMED)
HOURS OF GUARD SERVICE PER WEEK:
1) Security Officer 1: 168 hours
2) Security Officer 2: 168 hours
3) Security Officer 3: 168 hours
Total Hours: 504 a week
START DATE: Continued from Center for Independent Living Contract January 1, 2023 WEEKLY SCHEDULE:
1) Security Officer 1: Monday-Sunday
2) Security Officer 2: Monday-Sunday
3) Security Officer 3: Monday-Sunday
BILLING RATE(S):
• $36.00 Per hour: Unarmed Security Officer
• On Call Consultation services (Included at a discounted rate) • (2) Silvertrac Monthly reporting software licenses
• (2) Cellphone reporting devices (Included at no additional cost) • Radios, signs, and limited security equipment
(Monthly equipment fee will be applied to invoice)
OVERTIME RATE POLICY:

The Overtime rate is for each hour of service rendered by each Security Officer in excess of eight (8) hours on any single shift within a twenty-four (24) hour period or in excess of forty (40) hours in any single week. For each security officer who is required to appear in court or at a deposition as a witness as a result of an occurrence at City's facility, Company shall bill City at the overtime rate for the number of hours the Security Officer is required to be present in court, plus parking charges and travel time to court. Overtime shall be calculated at 1.5 times the regular billed hourly rate after the 8th hour and up to the 12th hour of any single shift. Overtime work completed by a guard on any single shift after the 12th hour shall be calculated at twice the hourly billed rate.

HOLIDAY RATE POLICY:

The holiday rate is for any services by each security guard on any of the following holidays:

New Year’s Day, Labor Day, Presidents Day, Veterans Day, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving Day, Independence Day, and Christmas Day. Holiday rate shall be calculated at 1.5 times the regular billed hourly rate.

POST ORDERS: Will be added below and agreed upon by company and City. -7190436Ā.6:25782Ā/-)Ā.! !"(-#Ȁ.*'!Ȁ$$-"Ȁ* !Ȁ"%.&,-"$,+,$ City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-315, Version: 1
Salinas City Center Improvement Association 2022 Annual Report Approve a Resolution accepting and approving the Salinas City Center Improvement Association (SCCIA) 2022 Annual Report
City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/8/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 13, 2023
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: LISA BRINTON, DIRECTOR
BY: MICHAEL GOMEZ, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYST
ITLE: SALINAS CITY CENTER IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 2022

ANNUAL REPORT
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution accepting and approving the Salinas City Center Improvement Association (SCCIA) 2022 Annual Report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The 2022 Annual Report is provided as Attachment 2 to this staff report.The approval of this report is at the discretion of the Council. With Council approval, the SCCIA Annual Report will also provide direction for SCCIA activities and use of assessment district funds in the fiscal year.

BACKGROUND:

In 2015, the City Council and the Board of Supervisors accepted the Salinas Downtown Vibrancy Plan as a strategic planning document to guide the revitalization of downtown Salinas including the government center. That same year, the City Council formed the Salinas Downtown Community Benefit District (CBD) and entered into a Management and Disbursement Agreement with the Salinas City Center Improvement Association (SCCIA) to implement the Management District Plan. SCCIA is to create an annual District budget and policies to comply with the District Plan; prepare and file quarterly and annual reports with the City reflecting compliance with the District Plan; and oversee the day-to-day implementation of District Plan Improvements.

As a CBD, parcels within the District boundary derive special benefit from programs and activities funded by assessments levied against the identified properties. The benefits, identified in the Management District Plan, are special and unique to the parcels within the District because programs and services (i.e. sidewalk operations/beautification; district identity; program management; and contingency/reserve) are provided directly and solely for the benefit of the Page | 2
identified parcels. The objective of providing these special benefits is to keep the District area clean, safe, orderly, attractive, well marketed with special events and programs, and to increase commerce within the CBD boundaries.

The annual levy of assessment in each of the fiscal years referred to in the District Plan are conditioned on the approval, by resolution, of an annual report pursuant Section 36650 of the Property and Business Improvement District (PBID) Law. A summary of SCCIA’s 2022 Annual Report and FY 2022-2023 annual budget follows.

DISCUSSION:
2022 Annual Report
The 2022 Annual Report covers the period from December 1, 2021, to November 30, 2022. The financial statement for this time-period is part of the Annual Report (Attachment 2). During this period, $458,273.63 was collected in assessments and $7,866.76 in grants was received. Total expenditures in FY 2021-2022 were $424,674.58 resulting in a remaining net income of $41,465.58 and a carry forward balance of $288,782.88. Table 1 below provides a breakdown of expenditures by program area for the reporting period.

Table 1

PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY

FUNDED BY THE

DOWNTOWN

PERCENTAGE OF
ANNUAL
BUDGET
2022 EXPENDITURES
Sidewalk Operations, Beautification
and Order
31% $ 206,230.87
District Identity and Streetscape
Improvement
26% $ 108,206.40
Administration/Corporate
Operations
34% $ 110,237.31
Contingency/City and County
Fees/Reserves/Special projects
0% $ 0.00
TOTAL 91% $ 424,674.58
SCCIA 2022 program accomplishments and 2023 goals are outlined in the Annual Report (Attachment 2). Goals and accomplishments are organized by committee/program area. A summary of highlights is provided below. The entire list of accomplishments and goals by committee is provided in the attached Annual Report.
2022 Accomplishments Highlights
Sidewalk Operations, Beautification and Order
 Provided additional cleaning and debris removal during the Main Street Streetscape Improvement Project
 Provided maintenance and flower replacement for the Main Street Project; pots on the 400 block and various planters and hanging baskets
Page | 3
District Identity/Sidewalk Improvements
 Hired a district coordinator and a grant writer and successfully earned multiple grants to benefit the DISI efforts
 Worked as liaison with City for events in Downtown Salinas  Added colored lighting to the Salinas Arch
 Continued to coordinate with various stakeholders to promote downtown Land Use
 Advocated for and assisted individual business with proposed signage.  Initiated a coalition to review City of Salinas permit process performance  Worked in a coalition to review and comment on the City of Salinas process for permits for outdoor dining and retail.
 Held a board strategic Planning retreat for the first formal goal-setting meeting. 2023 Goals Highlights
Sidewalk Operations, Beautification and Order
 Continue to provide maintenance, beautification and security in a manner that is in line with budget.
 Seal the new sidewalks along Main Street to prevent staining.  Perform semi-annual sidewalk pressure washing.

District Identity/Sidewalk Improvements
 Implement downtown banner program for local business, nonprofits, and events and study whether it could be profitable.
 Produce "Welcome to Salinas City Center" bags to new merchants including swag and relevant information.
 Add speakers for streaming music on light poles throughout Downtown.  Monthly newsletter and biannual “What’s Happening in SCC” with Mayor and SCCIA board members.

Land Use
 Review drafts and submit comment, guide decision making that conforms with Downtown Vibrancy Plan (DVP) outcomes
 Complete an Historic Sign Ordinance
2022-2023 Operating Budget
The SCCIA Board approved the 2022-2023 Operating Budget provided on page 15 of the Annual Report (Attachment 2). Total Assessment for 2022-2023 is estimated to be $457,000 plus $228,229 in 2021-2022 Carry Over funds, minus collection loss of $9,140 for a total 2022-2023 Operating Budget of $676,089. The projected expenses are estimated at $545,600 for FY2022- 2023 leaving the projected ending balance to be $130,239. Operating expenditures are broken down by program/activity area in Table 2 below.

Page | 4
Table 2

PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY

FUNDED BY THE

DOWNTOWN

PERCENTAGE OF
ANNUAL
BUDGET

PROPOSED
2023 EXPENDITURES
Sidewalk Operations, Beautification
and Order
60% $ 315,000.00
District Identity and Streetscape
Improvement
22% $ 118,000.00
Administration/Corporate
Operations
14% $ 107,850.00
Contingency/City and County
Fees/Reserves/Special projects
4% $ 5,000.00
TOTAL 100% $ 545,850.00
2023-2024 Annual Assessment
The 2015 Engineers Report and Management District Plan includes the formula and methodology for calculating annual assessment amounts. The assessment amount is based upon a benefit calculation by linear frontage on all sides of the parcels that receive benefit; lot or parcel square footage; and building square footage. As permitted in the District’s Engineer’s Report, the SCCIA Board has approved an annual inflationary assessment rate increase of five percent (5%) to the method of assessment for FY 2023-2024. No boundary changes of the CBD Area are proposed.

Levy of assessment for 2023-2024 is based on the following calculations.  Linear frontage - Benefit Zone 1 $5.2500 per linear foot/year  Linear frontage - Benefit Zone 2 $3.6645 per linear foot/year  Lot size or the footprint of the parcel $0.070508 per square foot/year  Building square footage $0.088749 per square foot/year  Future residential condos $0.21 per square foot of parcel unit square footage The calculated assessment amount by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) for FY 2023-2024 is included in the Annual Report (Attachment 2). Based on the above calculations, the estimated total assessment amount to be collected in FY 2023-2024 is $479,266.13.

As stated in the Background section of this report, the annual levy of assessment in each of the fiscal years referred to in the District Plan are conditioned on the approval, by resolution, of an annual report pursuant Section 36650 of the Property and Business Improvement District (PBID) Law. The approval of such report is at the discretion of the Council.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines section 15378). Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from implementation of DVP recommendations will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

Page | 5
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Downtown Vibrancy Plan implementation, including the operation of SCCIA as a CBD, most closely aligns with the 2022-2025 City Council Goals and Strategic Plan initiatives of Economic Development, Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability and Public Safety. CBD assessments are used to provide an enhanced level of service to improve the appearance, cleanliness, and safety in the SCCIA district.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Community Development staff coordinated with SCCIA to prepare this report.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no fiscal or sustainability impact associated with the receipt and acceptance of this report.

The City will pass the assessments collected by the County of Monterey through to SCCIA to be used in accordance with the approved District Management Plan and annual budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution accepting and approving the SCCIA FY 2022 Annual Report

2. SCCIA 2022 Annual Report

3. CBD Map

RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE SALINAS CITY CENTER IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 2022 ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE

DOWNTOWN SALINAS COMMUNITY BENEFIT DISTRICT AREA
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2014, the CityCouncil adopted Ordinance No. 2556, the City of Salinas’ Community Benefit District Ordinance, authorizing the City to establish a Community Benefit District (“CBD”) for up to 20 years to enhance the security, safety, appearance, and economic viability within such districts; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance authorizes the City to levy and collect assessments on real property within such districts for the purpose of providing improvements and promoting activities that specially benefit real property within such districts; and WHEREAS, the Ordinance authorizestheCityto use the proceduresset forth in the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (Streets & Highways Code sections 36600 et seq., the “PBID Law”) as modified by the Ordinance for purposes of forming an assessment district; and WHEREAS, Articles XIIC and XIID of theCaliforniaConstitution and Section 53753 of the California Government Code (Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act) also impose certain procedural and substantive requirements relating to the notice, protests and hearing requirements pertaining to new or increased assessments; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 577) to form the Salinas Downtown CommunityBenefit District (the “District” or “CBD”). This action included adoption of a District Management Plan and Engineer’s Assessment Report and direction to the City Clerk to mail ballot packets and notice of the public hearing to be held on July 21, 2015, to the proposed district property owners; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2015, theCityCouncil adopted Resolution No. 20808 certifying the positive results of a duly held election process confirming that the majority of property owners within the District agreed to its formation; and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21226 N.C.S. amending 2015 Engineer’s Report to add two properties to the District; and WHEREAS, the boundaries of the Downtown Salinas CBD are as shown on the map attached, which is incorporated herein by this reference. No boundary changes of the CBD Area are proposed; and
WHEREAS, the 2015 Engineers Report and District Management Plan include the formula and methodology for calculating annual assessment amounts. The assessment amount is based upon a benefit calculation by linear frontage on all sides of the parcels that receive benefit; lot or parcel square footage; and building square footage; and

WHEREAS, as permitted in the District’s Engineer’s Report, the SCCIA Board has approved an annual inflationary assessment rate increase of five percent (5%) to the method of assessment for FY 2023-2024; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023, the Salinas City Council of the City of Salinas considered 2021-2022 Annual Report submitted by Salinas City Center Improvement Association on April 25, 2023, in accordance with the Management and Disbursement Agreement with the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL:

SECTION 1. That the 2022 SCCIA Annual Report for the Salinas Downtown Community Benefit District and 2022-2023 OperatingBudget is confirmed as originallyfiled.

SECTION 2. The SCCIA Board has approved an annual inflationary assessment rate increase of five percent (5%) to the method of assessment for FY 2023-2024. Assessment calculations provided in the 2022 Annual Report shall constitute the levy of assessments for the Salinas Downtown Community Benefit District for FY 2023-2024.

SECTION 3. The revenue received by levy of an assessment within the Salinas Downtown CBD in FY 2023-2024 shall be used only for purposes specifically permitted by the PBID Law and for no other purposes.

SECTION 4. The name of the business improvement area is “Salinas Downtown Community Benefit District” and its boundaries are as shown on the map attached, which is incorporated herein by this reference.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of June 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT: APPROVED:

Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:

Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
2022 Annual Report
Salinas City Center Improvement Association
10b Mid-Town Ln
Salinas, CA 93901
Table of Contents
About the Salinas City Center Improvement Association ..... 3 Area Map ..... 4
Board ..... 6
Team ..... 6
Big Events ..... 7
Financial Statements ..... 9
Accountants Compilation Report ..... 10
Operating Budget ..... 14
Assessment Data ..... 16
Annual Work Plan ..... 23
Accomplishments and Goals FY 2022/2023
Sidewalk Operations, Beautification, & Order (SOBO) Committee ..... 23 District Identity & Streetscape Improvements (DISI) Committee ..... 26 Land Use Committee (LUC) ..... 28
Annual Calendar .....31
Appendix ..... 32
About the Salinas City Center
Improvement Association
In 2015, downtown property owners voted to form an improvement district and assess their properties. Early in 2016, the property owners formed a 501(c)3 public benefit corporation called Salinas City Center Improvement Association (SCCIA). SCCIA is now up and running, with a district manager and a full slate of volunteer committees working hard to implement the vision for a vibrant downtown.

There are two distinct areas of
investment, funded with property
owner assessments within the
district. They are Sidewalk
Operations, Beautification, and
Order (SOBO) and District Identity
and Streetscape Improvements
(DISI). Each area has a full
volunteer committee to develop
its programs. A third committee,
Land Use, works to promote City,
County, and Public Agency
cooperation for new development
and planning.

Property owners shape the makeup of downtown Salinas, to positively affect the business climate, and increase foot traffic, engagement, and entertainment. They support development of new residential units, professional businesses, thriving retail, restaurants, cafes, and services.

The district is a welcoming and exciting place for young professionals, and a magnet for new businesses and jobs.

This modern, urban environment is achieved through a series of measures, including beautification, safety, attracting quality developers, and development of a strong district identity and marketing campaign. We embrace the rich culture and history of our people and our town.

The SCCIA Board of Directors welcomes and encourages public input and participation in issues that affect our community. For more information on how you can get involved, please contact District Coordinator Greg Hamer.

Board
Board President Steve Ish [email protected] (831)455-5928 Board Vice
President
Catherine Kobrinsky
Evans [email protected] (831) 320-6445
Board Treasurer Greg Piini [email protected] (831) 422-5327 Board Secretary Meryl Rasmussen [email protected] (831) 717-7704 Board Member Audrey Wardwell [email protected] (831) 484-4604 Board Member Jay DeSerpa [email protected] (831) 595-1070 Board Member Peter Kasavan [email protected] (831) 424-2232 Board Member Jason Retterer [email protected] (831) 682-5352 Board Member Joel Panzer [email protected] (831) 771-2557 Board Member Frank Saunders [email protected] (831) 595-1640 Board Member Greg Findley [email protected] (831) 755-1639 Board Member Larry Bussard [email protected] (831) 206-1472 Board Member Kurt Dillard [email protected] (831) 422-2967 Board Member James Kendall [email protected] (831) 275-0129 Team
District
Coordinator Greg Hamer [email protected] (831) 877-0997 Government
Affairs Director Kevin Dayton [email protected] (831) 869-6592 Marketing Jenna Hanson Abramson [email protected] -
Maintenance Kevin Hayes [email protected] - Big Events
The Salinas City Center hosts some of the largest gatherings in Monterey County.

Thousands flock downtown to enjoy unique experiences such as the Monterey County Veterans Parade and Horse Parades in July.

Events include long-term staples such as the First Friday Art Walk and the Oldtown Salinas Foundation Farmers Market.

Other large events include:
• Steinbeck Festival
• Salinas Valley Food and Wine
• Salinas PAL Car Show
• Rodeo Kiddie Kapers Parade
• Hometown Hero Banner
• Veterans Day Parade
• Business Expo Block Party
• Festa Italia
• Weathertech Indy Street-Car Party
• Relay for Life
• Salinas High Homecoming Parade
• Parade of Lights
• Tree of Peace Illumination

Financial Statements
Accountants Compilation Report
Fiscal Year 2021-2022
December 1, 2021 to November 30, 2022
ACCOUNTANTS’ COMPILATION REPORT
To The Board of Directors
Salinas City Center Improvement Association
Salinas, California
Management is responsible for the accompanying statement of revenues and expenses – actual vs. budget – fiscal year 2021-2022 – cash basis of Salinas City Center Improvement Association (a nonprofit organization) for the twelve months ended November 30, 2022, in accordance with the cash basis of accounting, and for determining that the cash basis of accounting is an acceptable financial reporting framework. We have performed a compilation engagement in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services promulgated by the Accounting and Review Services Committee of the AICPA. We did not audit or review the statement of revenues and expenses – actual vs. budget – fiscal year 2021-2022 – cash basis nor were we required to perform any procedures to verify the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by management. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion, a conclusion, nor provide any form of assurance on the statement of revenues and expenses – actual vs. budget – fiscal year 2021-2022 – cash basis.

The financial statement is prepared in accordance with the cash basis of accounting, which is a basis of accounting other than accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The supplementary budget information contained in the statement of revenues and expenses – actual vs. budget – fiscal year 2021-2022 – cash basis is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management. The supplementary budget information was subject to our compilation engagement. We have not audited or reviewed the supplementary budget information and do not express an opinion, a conclusion, nor provide any assurance on such information.

Management has elected to omit substantially all the disclosures ordinarily included in financial statements prepared in accordance with the cash basis of accounting. If the omitted disclosures were included in the financial statement, they might influence the user's conclusions about the Company's revenues and expenses. Accordingly, the financial statement is not designed for those who are not informed about such matters.

We are not independent with respect to Salinas City Center Improvement Association.

Steinbruner Hill CPAs
Carmel, California
December 6, 2022
Salinas City Center Improvement Association
Statement of Revenues and Expenses - Actual vs. Budget - Fiscal Year 2021-2022 - Cash Basis For the Twelve Months Ended November 30, 2022
Actual Budget Remaining % Remaining Actual Budget Remaining % Remaining Actual Budget Remaining % Remaining Income Assessments $ 274,964.18 $ 274,200.00 $ (764.18) $ 100,820.21 $ 100,540.00 $ (280.21) $ 64,158.31 $ 63,980.00 $ (178.31) Grants - - 7,866.73 - - - Plus: FY 2020-21 Carry Over 91,531.46 91,531.46 65,029.67 65,029.67 50,781.80 50,781.80 Reallocation of 2020-2021 Carryov 40,000.00 40,000.00 - (10,000.00) (10,000.00) - - - - Total Income $ 406,495.64 $ 405,731.46 $ (764.18) $ 163,716.61 $ 155,569.67 $ (280.21) $ 114,940.11 $ 114,761.80 $ (178.31)Expenses Bank Service Charges - - - - 149.40 400.00 250.60 63% Formation Costs Payback - - - - - Insurance - - - - 2,253.00 2,300.00 47.00 2% Professional Services - - Accounting - - - - 10,387.00 10,000.00 (387.00) -4% Legal - - - - - 2,000.00 2,000.00 100% Other - - - - 927.40 2,000.00 1,072.60 54% Total Professional Services - - - - - - 13,716.80 16,700.00 2,983.20 18% Office - - Rent/CAM/Utilities - - - - 5,960.76 6,000.00 39.24 1% Office Annual Cleaning - - - - - 600.00 600.00 100% Office Furnishings/Paint - - - - 1,000.00 1,000.00 100% Computer / Internet - - - - 1,884.86 1,500.00 (384.86) -26% Total Office - - - - - - 7,845.62 9,100.00 1,254.38 14% Staff - - - - - Payroll - Wages & Taxes 41,315.08 50,000.00 8,684.92 17% - 16,017.36 16,110.00 92.64 - Workers Comp Insurance 3,443.67 - (3,443.67) 158.78 - (158.78) Government Affairs - - - - - - 27,600.00 24,000.00 (3,600.00) -15% Total Staff 44,758.75 50,000.00 5,241.25 10% - - - 43,776.14 40,110.00 (3,666.14) -9% SOBO - - - Sidewalk Ops (Maintenance) 95,643.83 105,000.00 9,356.17 9% - - Beautification/Order(Security) 110,587.04 195,000.00 84,412.96 43% - - Total SOBO 206,230.87 300,000.00 93,769.13 31% - - - - - -

DISI - - -
District Identity - 55,815.52 100,000.00 44,184.48 44% - Streetscape Improvements - 52,390.88 46,000.00 (6,390.88) -14% - Total DISI - - - 108,206.40 146,000.00 37,793.60 26% - - - Extra Budget Expenses
Collection Loss - 5,500.00 5,500.00 100% 2,000.00 2,000.00 100% - 1,280.00 1,280.00 100% Taxes 140.00 100.00 (40.00) -40%
Total Expenses 250,989.62 355,500.00 104,510.38 29% 108,206.40 148,000.00 39,793.60 27% 65,478.56 67,290.00 1,811.44 3%Net Income 23,974.56 50,231.46 480.54 7,569.67 (1,320.25) 47,471.80 Balance as of 11/30/22 $ 155,506.02 $ 55,510.21 $ 7,569.67 $ 49,461.55 SOBO DISI Administration
(See accompanying accountants' report)
1 of 2
Salinas City Center Improvement Association
Statement of Revenues and Expenses - Actual vs. Budget - Fiscal Year 2021-2022 - Cash Basis For the Twelve Months Ended November 30, 2022
Income Assessments Grants Plus: FY 2020-21 Carry Over Reallocation of 2020-2021 CarryovTotal IncomeExpenses Bank Service Charges Formation Costs Payback Insurance Professional Services Accounting Legal Other Total Professional Services Office Rent/CAM/Utilities Office Annual Cleaning Office Furnishings/Paint Computer / Internet Total Office Staff Payroll - Wages & Taxes Workers Comp Insurance Government Affairs Total Staff SOBO Sidewalk Ops (Maintenance) Beautification/Order(Security) Total SOBO DISI District Identity Streetscape Improvements Total DISI Extra Budget Expenses Collection LossTaxes
Total ExpensesNet IncomeBalance as of 11/30/22
Actual Budget Remaining
%
Remaining Actual Budget Remaining % Remaining
$ 18,330.93 $ 18,280.00 $ (50.93) $ 458,273.63 $ 457,000.00 $ (1,273.63) - - 7,866.73 -
39,974.17 39,974.17 247,317.10 247,317.10
(30,000.00) (30,000.00) - - -
$ 28,305.10 $ 28,254.17 $ (50.93) $ 713,457.46 $ 704,317.10 $ (9,140.36) - - 149.40 400.00 250.60 63%
5,000.00 5,000.00 100% - 5,000.00 5,000.00 100%
- 2,253.00 2,300.00 47.00 2%- - - -
- 10,387.00 10,000.00 (387.00) -4%
- 2,000.00 2,000.00 100%
- 927.40 2,000.00 1,072.60 54%
- - - 13,716.80 16,700.00 2,983.20 18%
- - - -
- 5,960.76 6,000.00 39.24 1%
- - 600.00 600.00 100%- - 1,000.00 1,000.00 100%- 1,884.86 1,500.00 (384.86) -26% - - - 7,845.62 9,100.00 1,254.38 14%
- - - -
57,332.44 66,110.00 8,777.56 13%
- 27,600.00 24,000.00 (3,600.00) -15%
- - - 88,534.89 90,110.00 1,575.11 2%
- - - -
- 95,643.83 105,000.00 9,356.17 9%- 110,587.04 195,000.00 84,412.96 43% - - - 206,230.87 300,000.00 93,769.13 31%
- - - -
- 55,815.52 100,000.00 44,184.48 44%
- 52,390.88 46,000.00 (6,390.88) -14%
- - - 108,206.40 146,000.00 37,793.60 26%
- 360.00 360.00 100% - 9,140.00 9,140.00 100%
140.00 100.00 (40.00) -40%
- 5,360.00 5,360.00 100% 424,674.58 576,150.00 151,475.42 26% 18,330.93 22,894.17 41,465.78 128,167.10
$ 28,305.10 $ 288,782.88
Contingency/Reserves TOTAL
(See accompanying accountants' report)
2 of 2
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
December 1, 2022 to November 30, 2023
Friday, November 18, 2022 SOBO DISI Administration Contingency/Reserve Total

60.0% 22.0% 14.0% 4.0% 100.0%
Gross Income
2022‐2023 Assessments $274,200 $100,540 $63,980 $18,280 $457,000 Gifts & Donations $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total gross income $274,200 $100,540 $63,980 $18,280 $457,000 Less: Collection loss 2.0% $0 $0 $0 $9,140 $9,140
Effective income $274,200 $100,540 $63,980 $9,140 $447,860 Expenses
Bank Service Charges $200 $200
Formation Costs Payback $5,000 $5,000
Insurance $2,300 $2,300
Professional Services
Accounting $11,500 $11,500
Legal $2,000 $2,000
Other (HR & Grant Writing) $10,000 $10,000
Total Professional Services $23,500 $23,500
Office
Rent/CAM/Utilities $6,000 $6,000
Office Annual Cleaning $600 $600
Office Furniture/Supplies $1,500 $1,500
Computer/Internet $2,500 $2,500
Total Office $10,600 $10,600
Staff
Kevin Payroll ‐ Wages, Taxes & WC $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 Greg Payroll ‐ Wages, Taxes & WC $10,000 $35,000 $45,000 $90,000 Government Affairs $0 $0 $26,000 $26,000
Total Staff $60,000 $35,000 $71,000 $166,000
SOBO
Smith & Enright $95,000 $95,000
Sidewalk Pressure Washing & Sealing $40,000 $40,000
Beautification / Order (Security) $120,000 $120,000
Total SOBO $255,000 $255,000
DISI
District Identity $57,000 $57,000
Streetscape Improvements $26,000 $26,000
Total DISI $83,000 $83,000
Subtotal $315,000 $118,000 $107,600 $5,000 $545,600
Extra Budget Expense
Taxes $0 $0 $250 $0 $250
Total Extra Budget Expense $0 $0 $250 $0 $250
Total Expenses $315,000 $118,000 $107,850 $5,000 $545,850 Total Income ‐$40,800 ‐$17,460 ‐$43,870 $4,140 ‐$97,990 Cash Flow
Beginning balance (Projected 2021‐2022 Carryover) $141,597 $20,187 $43,140 $23,305 $228,229 Reallocation of 2021‐2022 carryover ‐$40,000 $10,000 $30,000 $0 $0 Net operating income ‐$40,800 ‐$17,460 ‐$43,870 $4,140 ‐$97,990 Projected ending balance $60,797 $12,727 $29,270 $27,445 $130,239 Salinas City Center Improvement Association
Operating Budget ‐ Fiscal Year 2022‐2023
Assessment Data
Fiscal Year 2023-2024
December 1, 2023 to November 30, 2024
APN Legal Owner Site # Site Street
Benefit
Zone Bldg SF Bldg Asmnt Lot SF Lot SF Asmnt Frontage LF Asmnt Annual
Assessment
SALINAS PROPERTY DATABASE Asmnt Fees Bldg. SF Lot SF LF 2023 ‐ 2024 TAX YEAR Zone 1 0.088749 0.070508 5.250000
CPI INCREASE 5.00% Zone 2 0.088749 0.070508 3.664500002 163 007 000 City Of Salinas 104 Central Ave 2 0 $ ‐ 6,600 465.35 $ 181 $ 663.27 $ 1,128.62 002 163 008 000 McCain Richard & Michelle 106 Central Ave 2 1,089 96.65 $ 6,500 $ 458.30 50 $ 183.23 $ 738.17002 163 009 000 Tarantino John M 110 Central Ave 2 649 57.60 $ 6,500 458.30 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 699.12 002 163 010 000 Fuentes Jose 114 Central Ave 2 1,542 136.85 $ 11,900 839.04 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 1,159.12 002 163 011 000 Lee Paul Chan & Soo Jin 118 Central Ave 2 2,350 208.56 $ 12,247 863.51 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 1,255.29 002 163 012 000 Irma Nunes & Morales Maria 122 Central Ave 2 1,475 130.90 $ 8,700 613.42 $ 60 $ 219.87 $ 964.19 002 163 013 000 Rojas Jorge & Gladys 128 Central Ave 2 1,296 115.02 $ 3,600 253.83 $ 122 $ 447.07 $ 815.91 002 163 014 000 Herring Vincent & Sherri 47 Stone St 2 1,034 91.77 $ 3,200 225.62 $ 64 $ 234.53 $ 551.92 002 163 015 000 Lei Gouxin & Liang Amanda 43 Stone St 2 1,140 101.17 $ 7,000 493.55 $ 65 $ 238.19 $ 832.92 002 163 016 000 Chavez Anthony & Kimberly 33 Stone St 2 1,591 141.20 $ 7,100 500.60 $ 103 $ 377.44 $ 1,019.25 002 163 018 000 SF Steinbeck Commons LP 10 Lincoln Ave 2 75,772 6,724.70 $ 89,028 6,277.14 $ 330 1,209.29 $ $ 14,211.13 002 163 019 000 Mora Serafin & Virgina 28 Lincoln Ave 2 1,150 102.06 $ 9,500 669.82 $ 63 $ 230.86 $ 1,002.75 002 164 003 000 Islamic Community Of Salinas 35 W Market St 2 2,380 211.22 $ 8,458 596.35 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 990.80 002 164 004 000 Islamic Community Of Salinas 33 W Market St 2 1,200 106.50 $ 5,200 366.64 $ 30 $ 109.94 $ 583.07 002 164 005 000 Islamic Community Of Salinas 31 W Market St 2 2,511 222.85 $ 2,511 177.04 $ 28 $ 102.61 $ 502.50 002 164 006 000 Bray Joanne N & Marilyn Thomas 29 W Market St 2 1,728 153.36 $ 3,250 229.15 $ 18 $ 65.96 $ 448.47 002 164 007 000 Bray Joanne N & Marilyn Thomas 23 W Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 12,229 862.24 $ 64 $ 234.53 $ 1,096.76 002 164 008 000 Bray Joanne N & Marilyn Thomas 19 W Market St 2 10,875 965.15 $ 5,349 377.14 $ 31 $ 113.60 $ 1,455.89 002 164 009 000 Rolyely LLC W Market St 2 7,690 682.48 $ 9,050 638.09 $ 60 $ 219.87 $ 1,540.44 002 164 020 000 Taylor Fresh Foods Inc 26 Central Ave 2 0 $ ‐ 9,234 651.07 $ 80 $ 293.16 $ 944.23 002 164 021 000 McMillin Family Trust 30 Central Ave 2 1,489 132.15 $ 8,400 592.26 $ 63 $ 230.86 $ 955.27 002 164 022 000 BIFFCO LLC 34 Central Ave 2 1,867 165.69 $ 8,177 576.54 $ 63 $ 230.86 $ 973.10 002 164 023 000 Hernandez Miguel A & Bonnie‐Lou 40 Central Ave 2 4,855 430.88 $ 9,750 687.45 $ 255 $ 934.45 $ 2,052.77 002 164 024 000 Hernandez Miguel A & Bonnie‐Lou 27 Lincoln Ave 2 0 $ ‐ 6,855 483.33 $ 45 $ 164.90 $ 648.23 002 164 034 000 Rolyely LLC 2 Salinas St 2 0 $ ‐ 11,261 $ 793.98 257 $ 941.78 $ 1,735.76 002 164 035 000 Mirkin Bernard B 2 2,770 245.84 $ 2,770 195.31 $ 100 $ 366.45 $ 807.59 002 164 036 000 Salinas Gateway LP (Condo‐Building) 25 Lincoln Ave 2 56,157 4,983.89 $ 0 $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ $ 4,983.89 002 164 037 000 Salinas Gateway LP (Condo‐Land) 2 0 $ ‐ 22,010 1,551.87 $ 276 1,011.40 $ $ 2,563.27 002 171 005 000 Transportation Agency Monterey County (TAMC) 42 W Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 14,989 1,056.84 $ 248 $ 908.80 $ 1,965.63 002 171 006 000 Transportation Agency Monterey County (TAMC) 15 Station Pl 2 0 $ ‐ 5,250 370.16 $ 35 $ 128.26 $ 498.42 002 171 007 000 Transportation Agency Monterey County (TAMC) 17 Station Pl 2 0 $ ‐ 11,770 829.87 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 1,013.10 002 171 008 000 Transportation Agency Monterey County (TAMC) 19 Station Pl 2 0 $ ‐ 12,120 854.55 $ 60 $ 219.87 $ 1,074.42 002 171 010 000 Transportation Agency Monterey County (TAMC) 52 W Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 4,197 295.92 $ 32 $ 117.26 $ 413.18 002 171 011 000 Transportation Agency Monterey County (TAMC) 54 W Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 6,500 458.30 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 641.52 002 171 012 000 City Of Salinas 58 W Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 13,020 918.01 $ 100 $ 366.45 $ 1,284.46 002 171 013 000 City Of Salinas 60‐68 W Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 12,898 909.41 $ 230 $ 842.84 $ 1,752.24 002 171 023 000 Transportation Agency Monterey County (TAMC) 18 Station Pl 2 0 $ ‐ 15,850 1,117.54 $ 282 1,033.39 $ $ 2,150.93002 171 033 000 City Of Salinas 11 Station Pl 2 0 $ ‐ 71,578 5,046.79 $ 38 $ 139.25 $ 5,186.04002 171 034 000 Granary Associates 60 W Market St 2 28,454 2,525.27 $ 27,600 1,946.01 $ 102 $ 373.78 $ 4,845.05 002 171 035 000 City Of Salinas 20 Station Pl 2 0 $ ‐ 102,366 7,217.57 $ 400 1,465.80 $ $ 8,683.37 002 172 001 000 Transportation Agency Monterey County (TAMC) 30 W Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 4,350 306.71 $ 211 $ 773.21 $ 1,079.92 002 172 002 000 Transportation Agency Monterey County (TAMC) 26 W Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 6,387 450.33 $ 78 $ 285.83 $ 736.16002 172 010 000 City Of Salinas W Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 1,610 $ 113.52 55 $ 201.55 $ 315.06 002 172 011 000 Transportation Agency Monterey County (TAMC) 20 W Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 16,287 1,148.36 $ 200 $ 732.90 $ 1,881.26 002 172 012 000 City Of Salinas 10 W Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 15,179 1,070.23 $ 275 1,007.74 $ $ 2,077.97 2/25/2023 1 of 5
APN Legal Owner Site # Site Street
Benefit
Zone Bldg SF Bldg Asmnt Lot SF Lot SF Asmnt Frontage LF Asmnt Annual
Assessment
SALINAS PROPERTY DATABASE Asmnt Fees Bldg. SF Lot SF LF 2023 ‐ 2024 TAX YEAR Zone 1 0.088749 0.070508 5.250000
CPI INCREASE 5.00% Zone 2 0.088749 0.070508 3.664500
002 181 005 000 Jimenez Salvador 29 E Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 2,000 141.02 $ 120 $ 439.74 $ 580.76002 181 006 000 Jimenez Salvador 25 E Market St #27 2 0 $ ‐ 4,030 284.15 $ 40 $ 146.58 $ 430.73 002 181 007 000 Campos Jimenez Investments Inc 23 E Market St 2 2,662 236.25 $ 13,568 956.65 $ 35 $ 128.26 $ 1,321.15 002 181 008 000 Hagins Mary 21 E Market St 2 1,200 106.50 $ 1,069 75.37 $ 30 $ 109.94 $ 291.81 002 181 011 000 Marquez Carlos & Juana 67 E Market St #4 2 2,468 219.03 $ 5,657 398.86 $ 140 $ 513.03 $ 1,130.92 002 181 012 000 Campos Jimenez Investments Inc 35 E Market St 2 4,530 402.03 $ 4,622 325.89 $ 160 $ 586.32 $ 1,314.24 002 182 012 000 Central Coast Renewables LLC 139 Monterey St #14 2 7,755 688.25 $ 10,562 744.70 $ 206 $ 754.89 $ 2,187.84 002 182 013 000 Slama Kenneth E 137 Monterey St 2 8,151 723.39 $ 5,582 393.57 $ 56 $ 205.21 $ 1,322.18 002 182 014 000 Slama Kenneth E 135 Monterey St 2 925 82.09 $ 5,287 372.77 $ 48 $ 175.90 $ 630.76 002 182 019 000 Campos Jimenez Investments Inc 101 Monterey St 2 3,726 330.68 $ 8,718 614.68 $ 160 $ 586.32 $ 1,531.68002 182 020 000 Campos Jimenez Investments Inc 30 E Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 2,449 172.67 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 355.90 002 182 033 000 Campos Jimenez Investments Inc 111 Monterey St 2 9,143 811.43 $ 33,000 2,326.75 $ 303 1,110.34 $ $ 4,248.52 002 184 001 000 City Of Salinas E Market St 2 0 $ ‐ 31,043 2,188.76 $ 750 2,748.38 $ $ 4,937.14 002 185 011 000 Fuentes Juan & Romo Jose 129 Main St 1 2,750 244.06 $ 2,650 186.84 $ 21 $ 110.25 $ 541.16 002 185 012 000 Sang Trust 131 Main St 1 5,710 506.76 $ 3,750 264.40 $ 30 $ 157.50 $ 928.66 002 185 017 000 Saunders Frank H 161 Main St 1 8,357 741.68 $ 6,175 435.38 $ 51 $ 267.75 $ 1,444.81 002 185 018 000 Saunders Frank H 169 Main St #17 1 12,648 1,122.50 $ 6,359 448.36 $ 176 $ 924.00 $ 2,494.86002 185 019 000 Taylor Fresh Foods Inc 17 E Gabilan St 2 10,370 920.33 $ 11,165 787.22 $ 145 $ 531.35 $ 2,238.90002 185 020 000 Saunders Frank H & Norwood Kelly 172 Main St 1 12,454 1,105.28 $ 6,272 442.22 $ 178 $ 934.50 $ 2,482.00002 185 024 000 Center For Comm Advocacy A Non Profit Ca Corp 22 W Gabilan St 2 2,857 253.56 $ 2,925 206.23 $ 152 $ 557.00 $ 1,016.79 002 185 028 000 Rincon Del San Jon Properties 157 Main St 1 2,850 252.94 $ 3,006 211.95 $ 24 $ 126.00 $ 590.88 002 185 031 000 Green Valley Corporation 127 Main St 1 3,524 312.75 $ 3,044 214.62 $ 28 $ 147.00 $ 674.38 002 185 036 000 Salinas Redevelopment Agency Monterey St 2 0 $ ‐ 31,363 2,211.33 $ 379 1,388.85 $ $ 3,600.17 002 185 037 000 City Of Salinas 117 Main St 1 0 $ ‐ 11,761 829.24 $ 62 $ 325.50 $ 1,154.74 002 185 038 000 City Of Salinas Monterey St 2 0 $ ‐ 2,178 153.57 $ 20 $ 73.29 $ 226.86 002 185 039 000 University Corp of Monterey Bay 1 Main St 1 64,585 5,731.86 $ 59,962 4,227.77 $ 605 3,176.25 $ $ 13,135.88 002 185 042 000 University Corp of Monterey Bay *no Site Address* 2 0 $ ‐ 1,156 81.51 $ 110 $ 403.10 $ 484.60 002 185 043 000 Taylor Salinas Property Management Co Salinas St 2 0 $ ‐ 15,770 1,111.90 $ 168 $ 614.46 $ 1,726.37 002 185 045 000 Taylor Fresh Foods Inc Salinas St 2 0 $ ‐ 13,052 920.28 $ 231 $ 847.34 $ 1,767.62 002 185 046 000 Ppa Properties LLC 16 W Gabilan St 2 0 $ ‐ 23,282 1,641.56 $ 190 $ 696.26 $ 2,337.81 002 185 047 000 Taylor Salinas Property Management Co 150 Main St 1 109,806 9,745.19 $ 21,042 1,483.62 $ 459 2,411.88 $ $ 13,640.68 002 186 001 000 Maya Salinas Old Town Cinemas LLC 153 Main St 1 54,284 4,817.66 $ 54,284 3,827.43 $ 310 1,627.50 $ $ 10,272.59 002 186 002 000 Deserpa R Jay Ltd 155 Main St 1 1,730 153.54 $ 1,730 121.98 $ 60 $ 315.00 $ 590.51002 186 003 000 Deserpa R Jay Ltd 145 Main St 1 1,310 116.26 $ 1,310 92.36 $ 60 $ 315.00 $ 523.63 002 231 011 000 245 Monterey Street LLC 245 Monterey St 2 0 $ ‐ 11,000 775.58 $ 210 $ 769.55 $ 1,545.13 002 231 012 000 Kobrinsky Samuel & Marguerite 235 Monterey St 2 5,475 485.90 $ 5,500 387.79 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 1,056.92 002 231 013 000 Bay Capital Real Estate Inc. 233 Monterey St 2 5,500 488.12 $ 5,500 387.79 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 1,059.14 002 231 014 000 Robert Massera 231 Monterey St 2 0 $ ‐ 5,500 387.79 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 571.02 002 231 015 000 Drew David B 225 Monterey St 2 4,975 441.53 $ 5,500 387.79 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 1,012.54 002 231 018 000 Dabit Christopher R 201 Monterey St 2 1,189 105.52 $ 11,000 775.58 $ 210 $ 769.55 $ 1,650.65 002 231 024 000 Griffin Sharon Appling 219 Monterey St 2 5,500 488.12 $ 5,449 384.20 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 1,055.54 002 231 025 000 SCC Property LLC 211 Monterey St 2 6,547 581.04 $ 10,999 $ 775.50 100 $ 366.45 $ 1,723.00 002 231 026 000 SCC Property LLC 211 Monterey St 2 0 $ ‐ 5,589 394.05 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 577.27 002 232 008 000 Raquel Sisayan LLC 335‐349 Monterey St 2 13,298 1,180.19 $ 24,400 1,720.38 $ 322 1,179.97 $ $ 4,080.54002 232 009 000 LaValley Ronald William 329 Monterey St 2 5,750 510.31 $ 5,725 403.66 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 1,097.19 2/25/2023 2 of 5
APN Legal Owner Site # Site Street
Benefit
Zone Bldg SF Bldg Asmnt Lot SF Lot SF Asmnt Frontage LF Asmnt Annual
Assessment
SALINAS PROPERTY DATABASE Asmnt Fees Bldg. SF Lot SF LF 2023 ‐ 2024 TAX YEAR Zone 1 0.088749 0.070508 5.250000
CPI INCREASE 5.00% Zone 2 0.088749 0.070508 3.664500
002 232 010 000 LaValley Ronald William 325 Monterey St 2 528 46.86 $ 5,675 400.13 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 630.21 002 232 015 000 County Of Monterey 20 E Alisal St 2 0 $ ‐ 32,450 2,287.97 $ 405 1,484.12 $ $ 3,772.09 002 233 008 000 Broom Cynthia & Desmond Sandra 340 Monterey St 2 11,593 1,028.87 $ 15,188 1,070.87 $ 243 $ 890.47 $ 2,990.21002 233 009 000 Garing Ann 367 Main St 1 17,820 1,581.51 $ 6,200 437.15 $ 174 $ 913.50 $ 2,932.16002 233 010 000 KPM Properties LLC 361 Main St 1 6,163 546.96 $ 6,377 449.63 $ 50 $ 262.50 $ 1,259.09 002 233 011 000 Botelho Theresa Ann 343 Main St #357 1 16,176 1,435.61 $ 18,531 1,306.57 $ 151 $ 792.75 $ 3,534.93 002 233 012 000 Willette Jones 341 Main St 1 2,000 177.50 $ 2,510 176.97 $ 21 $ 110.25 $ 464.72 002 233 013 000 Navarro Belia Garcia 333 Main St 1 3,720 330.15 $ 3,777 266.31 $ 30 $ 157.50 $ 753.95 002 233 014 000 Ganesa Properties LLC 331 Main St 1 6,200 550.24 $ 6,234 439.54 $ 50 $ 262.50 $ 1,252.29 002 233 015 000 D & G Land Development Co 325 Main St 1 6,051 537.02 $ 6,145 433.27 $ 50 $ 262.50 $ 1,232.79 002 233 016 000 JB Salinas LLC 319 Main St 1 7,789 691.27 $ 6,203 437.36 $ 50 $ 262.50 $ 1,391.13 002 233 017 000 Muller Rita A 313 Main St 1 6,076 539.24 $ 6,061 427.35 $ 49 $ 257.25 $ 1,223.84 002 233 018 000 Gattis James L 307 Main St 1 12,710 1,128.00 $ 6,355 448.08 $ 51 $ 267.75 $ 1,843.83 002 233 019 000 Slama Kenneth E 303 Main St 1 40,365 3,582.36 $ 6,200 437.15 $ 174 $ 913.50 $ 4,933.01002 233 020 000 Service Employees International Union Local 52 334 Monterey St 2 4,367 387.57 $ 4,960 349.72 $ 40 $ 146.58 $ 883.86 002 233 021 000 Strobel Margaret I 338 Monterey St 2 3,050 270.68 $ 3,712 261.72 $ 30 $ 109.94 $ 642.34 002 233 023 000 City Of Salinas 300 Monterey St 2 0 $ ‐ 51,548 3,634.52 $ 532 1,949.51 $ $ 5,584.03 002 234 001 000 Saunders Frank H 202 Monterey St 2 957 84.93 $ 4,250 299.66 $ 131 $ 480.05 $ 864.64002 234 002 000 Patel Kiran J16 E Gabilan St 2 11,341 1,006.50 $ 4,309 303.82 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 1,493.55 002 234 009 000 Taylor Fresh Foods Inc 213 Main St 1 11,980 1,063.21 $ 6,820 480.86 $ 55 $ 288.75 $ 1,832.83 002 234 014 000 Ariano Allen D & Lynda 225 Main St 1 2,460 218.32 $ 2,480 174.86 $ 20 $ 105.00 $ 498.18 002 234 015 000 Ariano Allen D & Lynda 231 Main St 1 9,176 814.36 $ 9,300 655.72 $ 74 $ 388.50 $ 1,858.58 002 234 017 000 United Way Of Monterey County 245 Main St 1 32,400 2,875.47 $ 16,204 1,142.50 $ 120 $ 630.00 $ 4,647.98002 234 018 000 Haney Gaylon & Sharon 251 Main St 1 5,559 493.36 $ 8,100 571.11 $ 60 $ 315.00 $ 1,379.47 002 234 019 000 295 Main Street LLC 255 Main St 1 0 $ ‐ 13,552 955.52 $ 100 $ 525.00 $ 1,480.52 002 234 023 000 City Of Salinas Monterey St 2 0 $ ‐ 5,400 380.74 $ 0 $ ‐ $ 380.74 002 234 028 000 295 Main Street LLC 295 Main St 1 15,000 1,331.24 $ 25,214 1,777.78 $ 464 2,436.00 $ $ 5,545.01002 234 029 000 City Of Salinas 222 Monterey St 2 0 $ ‐ 31,147 2,196.10 $ 300 1,099.35 $ $ 3,295.45 002 234 030 000 City Of Salinas 222 Monterey St 2 0 $ ‐ 916 64.58 $ 0 $ ‐ $ 64.58 002 234 031 000 Entertainment Lane Inc 241 Main St 1 9,767 866.81 $ 10,890 767.83 $ 61 $ 320.25 $ 1,954.89 002 234 032 000 LaTourette Monica 221 Main St #205 1 11,320 1,004.64 $ 6,138 432.78 $ 50 $ 262.50 $ 1,699.92 002 234 033 000 Berkley Inc 201 Main St 1 0 $ ‐ 12,500 881.34 $ 244 1,281.00 $ $ 2,162.34 002 242 001 000 Saunders Henry E 202 Main St 1 8,928 792.35 $ 8,928 629.49 $ 196 1,029.00 $ $ 2,450.84 002 242 002 000 Andrus & Company 212 Main St 1 10,292 913.41 $ 10,245 722.35 $ 83 $ 435.75 $ 2,071.51 002 242 003 000 Valverde III Efraim & Claudia 222 Main St 1 4,564 405.05 $ 3,072 216.60 $ 25 $ 131.25 $ 752.90 002 242 006 000 Zhao Wen & Sharon Hongtong Xue 230 Main St 1 2,752 244.24 $ 2,910 $ 205.18 23 $ 120.75 $ 570.16 002 242 007 000 Andrus & Company 236 Main St 1 2,975 264.03 $ 3,298 232.53 $ 27 $ 141.75 $ 638.31 002 242 008 000 RBG Inc. 238 Main St 1 10,000 887.49 $ 6,304 444.48 $ 51 $ 267.75 $ 1,599.72 002 242 009 000 E J Ratto & G R Ratto 1998 Family Partnership 246 Main St 1 10,000 887.49 $ 3,100 218.57 $ 25 $ 131.25 $ 1,237.31 002 242 011 000 Haversat Trudy 254 Main St 1 4,800 426.00 $ 4,800 338.44 $ 24 $ 126.00 $ 890.43 002 242 012 000 Dillard Kurt D 256 Main St 1 2,480 220.10 $ 2,542 179.23 $ 20 $ 105.00 $ 504.33 002 242 013 000 Nham LLC 258 Main St 1 10,172 902.76 $ 5,172 364.66 $ 35 $ 183.75 $ 1,451.17 002 242 014 000 Cominos Properties LLC 4 W Alisal St 1 11,000 976.24 $ 11,473 808.93 $ 219 1,149.75 $ $ 2,934.92 002 242 015 000 Ames Family Trust 32 W Alisal St 2 4,069 361.12 $ 4,300 303.18 $ 43 $ 157.57 $ 821.88 002 242 016 000 Ames Family Trust 40 W Alisal St 2 0 $ ‐ 2,200 155.12 $ 22 $ 80.62 $ 235.74 2/25/2023 3 of 5
APN Legal Owner Site # Site Street
Benefit
Zone Bldg SF Bldg Asmnt Lot SF Lot SF Asmnt Frontage LF Asmnt Annual
Assessment
SALINAS PROPERTY DATABASE Asmnt Fees Bldg. SF Lot SF LF 2023 ‐ 2024 TAX YEAR Zone 1 0.088749 0.070508 5.250000
CPI INCREASE 5.00% Zone 2 0.088749 0.070508 3.664500
002 242 017 000 Ames Family Trust 46 W Alisal St 2 11,500 1,020.62 $ 5,974 421.21 $ 165 $ 604.64 $ 2,046.47 002 242 018 000 Ames Family Trust 237 Salinas St 2 4,654 413.04 $ 6,500 458.30 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 1,054.56 002 242 026 000 248 Main Street JS LLC 248 Main St 1 4,130 366.53 $ 3,191 224.99 $ 26 $ 136.50 $ 728.02 002 242 027 000 Taylor Fresh Foods Inc 250 Main St 1 3,248 288.26 $ 3,002 211.66 $ 24 $ 126.00 $ 625.92 002 242 028 000 Taylor Fresh Foods Inc 207 Salinas St 2 13,195 1,171.05 $ 27,300 1,924.85 $ 340 1,245.93 $ $ 4,341.83 002 242 029 000 City Of Salinas 219 Salinas St 2 0 $ ‐ 16,875 1,189.81 $ 140 $ 513.03 $ 1,702.84 002 242 030 000 Magdirila Diana B & Gloria 224 Main St 1 11,573 1,027.09 $ 6,162 434.47 $ 50 $ 262.50 $ 1,724.06 002 242 032 000 Salinas Urban Renewal Agency 230 Main St 1 0 $ ‐ 1,795 126.56 $ 22 $ 115.50 $ 242.06 002 242 033 000 City Of Salinas 228 Main St 2 0 $ ‐ 1,000 70.51 $ $ ‐ $ 70.51 002 242 034 000 Juarez Maria 231 Salinas St 2 0 $ ‐ 6,500 458.30 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 641.52 002 242 035 000 Piini Realty, Inc. 235 Salinas St 2 4,000 355.00 $ 5,000 352.54 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 890.76 002 243 001 000 Finegan James Brian 58‐60 W Alisal St 2 5,980 530.72 $ 6,900 486.50 $ 242 $ 886.81 $ 1,904.03 002 243 002 000 Haversat Trudy 64 W Alisal St 2 2,000 177.50 $ 3,000 211.52 $ 40 $ 146.58 $ 535.60 002 243 003 000 Minhoto Properties LP/Piini Realty Inc. 66 W Alisal St 2 2,690 238.74 $ 3,750 264.40 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 686.36 002 243 004 000 Santa Lucia Parlor No 97 Nsgw 76 W Alisal St 2 2,440 216.55 $ 8,250 581.69 $ 110 $ 403.10 $ 1,201.33 002 243 005 000 Minhoto Properties LP/Piini Realty Inc. 261 Lincoln Ave 2 4,877 432.83 $ 8,400 592.26 $ 262 $ 960.10 $ 1,985.19 002 244 002 000 City Of Salinas 215 Lincoln Ave 2 0 $ ‐ 4,600 324.33 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 507.56 002 244 098 000 City Of Salinas 210 Salinas St 2 0 $ ‐ 33,386 2,353.96 $ 550 2,015.48 $ $ 4,369.44002 244 099 000 City Of Salinas 100 Howard St 2 0 $ ‐ 39,472 2,783.07 $ 588 2,154.73 $ $ 4,937.80002 245 001 000 El Camino Enterprises Inc 102 Lincoln Ave 2 1,204 106.85 $ 5,063 356.98 $ 151 $ 553.34 $ 1,017.17 002 245 002 000 City Of Salinas 106 Lincoln Ave 2 0 $ ‐ 4,074 287.25 $ 40 $ 146.58 $ 433.83 002 245 003 000 City Of Salinas 108 Lincoln Ave 2 0 $ ‐ 4,050 285.56 $ 40 $ 146.58 $ 432.14 002 245 004 000 City Of Salinas 112 Lincoln Ave 2 0 $ ‐ 6,500 458.30 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 641.52 002 245 005 000 City Of Salinas 118 Lincoln Ave 2 0 $ ‐ 6,500 458.30 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 641.52 002 245 006 000 City Of Salinas 120 Lincoln Ave 2 0 $ ‐ 6,500 458.30 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 641.52 002 245 007 000 City Of Salinas 128 Lincoln Ave 2 0 $ ‐ 6,500 458.30 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 641.52 002 245 008 000 City Of Salinas W Gabilan St 2 0 $ ‐ 8,489 598.54 $ 191 $ 699.92 $ 1,298.46 002 245 009 000 Joaquin Bear LLC 118 W Gabilan St 2 5,843 518.56 $ 9,730 686.04 $ 209 $ 765.88 $ 1,970.48 002 245 010 000 Pitman Robert J 125 Church St 2 4,375 388.28 $ 6,500 458.30 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 1,029.80 002 245 011 000 Pitman John D & Robert J 117 Church St 2 6,000 532.49 $ 6,500 458.30 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 1,174.02 002 245 012 000 Pitman John D & Robert J 111 Church St 2 2,360 209.45 $ 6,500 458.30 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 850.97 002 245 014 000 Wlh Rentals LLC 109 Central Ave 2 1,347 119.55 $ 6,500 458.30 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 761.07 002 245 015 000 Wlh Rentals LLC 119 Central Ave 2 2,160 191.70 $ 13,650 962.43 $ 235 $ 861.16 $ 2,015.28 002 245 016 000 Pitman John D & Robert J 109 Church St 2 0 $ ‐ 6,500 458.30 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 641.52 002 246 014 000 City Of Salinas 200‐222 Lincoln Ave 2 0 $ ‐ 105,745 7,455.82 $ 1320 4,837.14 $ $ 12,292.96 002 247 001 000 U S A Lincoln Ave 2 0 $ ‐ 37,418 2,638.25 $ 820 3,004.89 $ $ 5,643.14 002 248 002 000 Piini Joseph J32 W Gabilan St 2 14,229 1,262.81 $ 25,967 1,830.87 $ 327 1,198.29 $ $ 4,291.97 002 248 005 000 Taylor Fresh Foods Inc 35 Central Ave 2 5,828 517.23 $ 13,000 916.60 $ 230 $ 842.84 $ 2,276.66 002 248 009 000 Monterey‐Salinas Transit 110 Salinas Rd #Lot 1 2 778 69.05 $ 18,699 1,318.42 $ 357 1,308.23 $ $ 2,695.69 002 248 010 010 Monterey‐Salinas Transit 110 Salinas Rd #Lot 22 0 $ ‐ 14,787 1,042.59 $ 100 $ 366.45 $ 1,409.04 002 248 011 000 City Of Salinas 128 W Gabilan St 2 0 $ ‐ 6,420 452.66 $ 208 $ 762.22 $ 1,214.87 002 251 003 000 Magnolia Zarraga 114 Church St 2 1,496 132.77 $ 6,200 437.15 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 753.14 002 251 014 000 Muller Rita A 123 Central Ave 2 3,834 340.26 $ 16,900 1,191.58 $ 260 $ 952.77 $ 2,484.61 002 251 015 000 Vega Nelson A 130 W Gabilan St 2 5,238 464.87 $ 9,693 683.43 $ 220 $ 806.19 $ 1,954.49 002 253 028 000 County Of Monterey *no Site Address* 2 0 $ ‐ 134,992 9,517.95 $ 1025 3,756.11 $ $ 13,274.06 2/25/2023 4 of 5
APN Legal Owner Site # Site Street
Benefit
Zone Bldg SF Bldg Asmnt Lot SF Lot SF Asmnt Frontage LF Asmnt Annual
Assessment
SALINAS PROPERTY DATABASE Asmnt Fees Bldg. SF Lot SF LF 2023 ‐ 2024 TAX YEAR Zone 1 0.088749 0.070508 5.250000
CPI INCREASE 5.00% Zone 2 0.088749 0.070508 3.664500
002 253 029 000 County Of Monterey 168 W Alisal St 2 0 $ ‐ 55,843 3,937.35 $ 193 $ 707.25 $ 4,644.60002 253 030 000 County Of Monterey 230 Church St 2 0 $ ‐ 45,781 3,227.90 $ 183 $ 670.60 $ 3,898.51 002 253 032 000 County Of Monterey *no Site Address* 2 0 $ ‐ 61,115 4,309.04 $ 505.49 1,852.37 $ $ 6,161.41 002 253 033 000 County Of Monterey *no Site Address* 2 0 $ ‐ 22,608 1,594.01 $ 118.5 434.24 $ $ 2,028.25 002 253 034 000 County Of Monterey *no Site Address* 2 0 $ ‐ 26,659 1,879.64 $ 330.76 1,212.07 $ $ 3,091.71 002 322 016 000 JRG Leasing II LLC 318 Cayuga St 2 21,161 1,878.02 $ 15,630 1,102.03 $ 120 $ 439.74 $ 3,419.79 002 322 018 000 County Of Monterey 142 W Alisal St 2 0 $ ‐ 46,609 3,286.28 $ 628 2,301.31 $ $ 5,587.59 002 331 002 000 Maldonado Albert 324 Lincoln Ave 2 4,200 372.75 $ 7,984 562.93 $ 60 $ 219.87 $ 1,155.55002 331 010 000 City Of Salinas 101 W Alisal St 2 0 $ ‐ 148,648 10,480.80 $ 1649 6,042.76 $ $ 16,523.56 002 335 005 000 MT18 123 W Alisal St 2 34,188 3,034.16 $ 37,026 2,610.61 $ 805 2,949.92 $ $ 8,594.69 002 341 001 000 Taylor Fresh Foods Inc 300 Main St 1 25,681 2,279.17 $ 18,614 1,312.43 $ 274 1,438.50 $ $ 5,030.09 002 341 002 000 Ariel Theatrical Inc 320 Main St 1 6,192 549.53 $ 6,200 437.15 $ 50 $ 262.50 $ 1,249.18 002 341 004 000 Burks Cleo V 330 Main St 1 3,042 $ 269.97 3,100 218.57 $ 29 $ 152.25 $ 640.80 002 341 005 000 Serra Apartments Inc 338 Main St 1 13,089 1,161.64 $ 12,628 890.37 $ 102 $ 535.50 $ 2,587.51002 341 006 000 Taylor Fresh Foods Inc 344 Main St 1 11,472 1,018.13 $ 6,323 445.82 $ 50 $ 262.50 $ 1,726.45 002 341 007 000 Kattner Robert 350 Main St 1 7,222 640.95 $ 6,250 440.67 $ 50 $ 262.50 $ 1,344.12 002 341 009 000 Boerlin Family Trust 362 Main St 1 2,437 216.28 $ 2,480 174.86 $ 20 $ 105.00 $ 496.14 002 341 010 000 Haney Gaylon L 364 Main St 1 940 83.42 $ 1,612 113.66 $ 13 $ 68.25 $ 265.33 002 341 011 000 Haney Gaylon L 366 Main St 1 2,064 183.18 $ 2,180 153.71 $ 17 $ 89.25 $ 426.13 002 341 012 000 Salmina Amy M & William J 376 Main St #A 1 7,500 665.62 $ 6,200 437.15 $ 125 $ 656.25 $ 1,759.02 002 341 014 000 City Of Salinas 345 Salinas St 2 0 $ ‐ 6,410 451.95 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 635.18 002 341 015 000 City Of Salinas Salinas St 2 0 $ ‐ 6,552 461.97 $ 50 $ 183.23 $ 645.19 002 341 016 000 City Of Salinas Salinas St 2 0 $ ‐ 13,336 940.29 $ 100 $ 366.45 $ 1,306.74 002 341 018 000 Gold Valley Properties LLC 333 Salinas St 2 13,176 1,169.36 $ 19,000 1,339.64 $ 150 $ 549.68 $ 3,058.68 002 341 019 000 Salinas Civic Ctr Bldg LLC 21 W Alisal St 2 18,000 1,597.48 $ 18,982 1,338.37 $ 280 1,026.06 $ $ 3,961.92 002 341 020 000 Hitchcock Richard Leslie 356 Main St 1 4,250 377.18 $ 6,200 437.15 $ 50 $ 262.50 $ 1,076.83 002 341 025 000 Kawahira Akira & Lillian 385 Salinas St 2 8,500 754.37 $ 13,000 916.60 $ 230 $ 842.84 $ 2,513.80 002 342 009 000 400 Main 415 Salinas St 2 2,007 178.12 $ 10,032 707.33 $ 282 1,033.39 $ $ 1,918.84 002 342 011 000 400 Main 406 Main St 1 12,985 1,152.41 $ 31,799 2,242.07 $ 558 2,929.50 $ $ 6,323.98 002 345 016 000 Parco Family Investments LP 344 Salinas St 2 27,660 2,454.80 $ 12,362 871.61 $ 597 2,187.71 $ $ 5,514.12 002 345 018 000 City Of Salinas 65 W Alisal St 2 0 $ ‐ 23,719 1,672.37 $ 440 1,612.38 $ $ 3,284.75 002 345 019 000 City Of Salinas 320 Salinas St 2 0 $ ‐ 51,383 3,622.89 $ 350 1,282.58 $ $ 4,905.46 002 346 001 000 3some Par‐Tners LLC 328 Main St #A 1 0 $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ $ ‐ 002 346 002 000 3some Par‐Tners LLC 328 Main St #A 1 2,677 237.58 $ 3,099 218.50 $ 25 $ 131.25 $ 587.33 002 346 003 000 3some Par‐Tners LLC 328 Main St #B 2 1,567 139.07 $ 0 $ ‐ 0 $ ‐ $ 139.07 002 351 008 000 Pi Properties No 140 LLC 405 Monterey St 1 20,828 1,848.47 $ 45,506 3,208.51 $ 593 3,113.25 $ $ 8,170.23 002 351 009 000 Northern Calif Savings & Loan 425 Main St 1 8,905 790.31 $ 39,400 2,778.00 $ 480 2,520.00 $ $ 6,088.31 002 351 010 000 Berryessa LLC 27 E John St 2 756 67.09 $ 16,568 1,168.17 $ 298 1,092.02 $ $ 2,327.28002 355 008 000 VF & B LLC 401 Monterey St 2 8,090 717.98 $ 18,656 1,315.39 $ 267.23 979.26 $ $ 3,012.63Totals 1,323,261 $117,438.29 3,111,932 219,414.54 $ 35,640 142,413.31 $ $ 479,266.13 2/25/2023 5 of 5

Annual Work Plan
Accomplishments and Goals FY 2022/2023
Sidewalk Operations, Beautification, & Order (SOBO)
Committee
Committee Members: Greg Piini, Joel Panzer
The Sidewalk Operations, Beautification, and Order Committee (SOBO) is charged with making the Salinas City Center District (District) a safer, more family-friendly place by overseeing private security and coordinating security needs with the City of Salinas Police Department. In addition, the SOBO Committee works on beautification efforts to keep the District well maintained and landscaped for the public, merchants, and property owners’ enjoyment.

The SOBO Committee was established in 2016. Over the past six years, SOBO has been run by a volunteer group that addresses security and sidewalk maintenance. Most areas of responsibility are provided under contract and have not varied significantly for several years.

SOBO’s services also adapted over the years due to the challenges presented by COVID. This primarily included switching security vendors to Allied Security in 2020 and expanding Smith & Enright’s sidewalk maintenance to our entire District after losing Hope Services in 2020.

Committee Accomplishments FY 2021/22
• Continued to contract with Allied Security for security services throughout our District. To improve security, Allied provides foot patrol six days a week; interacts with the local homeless population; responds to calls from local merchants, businesses, and property owners; and coordinates with the police department.
• Continued to contract with Smith & Enright for landscaping and sidewalk maintenance services to the entire District. Smith & Enright’s services cover the entire District and include trimming, weeding, sweeping, blowing, and picking up debris twice a week. • Provided maintenance and additional sidewalk pressure washing/cleaning for the Main Street Project.
• Provided maintenance and flower replacements for the Main Street Project, pots on the 400 Block and various planters and hanging baskets.
• Expanded Smith & Enright’s contract to include maintenance of the new planted areas of the Main Street Project.
• Supervised the work efforts of Kevin Hayes in his role staffing the Streetscape Maintenance position. Kevin provides valuable maintenance throughout the District as needed, with positive feedback from the business community. His electric utility vehicle helps Kevin be more efficient in managing our District.
• Implemented a security camera rebate program throughout the District but dismantled the program early due to lack of interest. One system was installed through this program at the NW corner of Salinas Street and Alisal Street.

Committee Goals FY 2022/2023
• Continue to provide maintenance, beautification, and security to our District in a manner that is in line with our budget.
• Seal the concrete on the sidewalks along Main Street to prevent staining and ease cleaning. • Add semi-annual pressure washing to the new sidewalks in the 2022/23 FY. Evaluate the effectiveness of the current pressure washing program.
• Transition the day-to-day oversight of SOBO’s operations to SCCIA’s District Coordinator, including supervising maintenance staff, overseeing payroll, communicating with SCCIA constituents, and purchasing supplies, as needed.
• Work with the City on replanting the leaning trees on Main Street. • Create additional job position to augment the Maintenance Team.

Budget FY 2022/23
We assume that the SOBO budget will remain the same for the 2022/23 Fiscal Year with an allocation of $274,200. These fees will be allocated as follows:

Streetscape Maintenance:

Employee payroll: $49,200
General Maintenance (Smith & Enright): $95,000
Pressure washing: $10,000
Total Streetscape Maintenance: $154,200
Security (Allied): $120,000
Total: $274,200
Security
Allied Security raised their rates mid-year to reflect needed cost of living wage increases for security staff. We will continue to contract with Allied Security at a cost of $119,808 a year ($2,304.00/week).

This contract provides security coverage from Monday through Saturday. We have not had any communication regarding potential cost increases for the upcoming year.

Landscaping and Maintenance – Zones 1 & 2
Smith & Enright currently provides
maintenance to the entire District. The cost is
scheduled to increase on January 1, 2023 to
$7,875 per month, or approximately $94,500
per year. This cost is allocated $4,140 per
month to Zone 1 and a portion of Zone 2
(Monterey Street to Salinas Street) and $3,725
per month for the remainder of Zone 2. We
anticipate continuing with Smith and Enright
for Zone 1 for FY2022/23 and will explore
switching Zone 2 back to Hope Services.

HOPE provided maintenance service to Zone 2
prior to COVID-19 and is gearing up to resume
contracting again. SOBO reached out to Hope
Services recently and are awaiting current
pricing.

Periodic maintenance “add-ons” do come-up
throughout the year. For FY2022/23, we
anticipate additional costs related to replacing
plants as needed, upgrading the hanging
baskets, treating aphids and other pests and
diseases, and straightening and/or replacing
five (5) leaning trees along Main Street. These items will be considered on a case-by-case basis and paid for from the FY2021/22 carryover.

Sidewalk Pressure Washing
Sidewalk pressure washing in FY2021/22 was provided by the Farmer’s Market and by Taylor Farms.

SOBO anticipates provided two cleanings in FY 2022/23 of the Main Street sidewalks. The cost is currently $900 per block (1 side), and this cost is anticipated to continue in FY2022/23. Continued participation with the Farmer’s Market and Taylor Farms will continue to be explored.

Sidewalk Sealing
Sealing the new concrete along Main Street is a priority; however, SOBO does not have any cost information yet on this project. SOBO will be researching options and obtaining bids in the near future and presenting options and costs to the Board. If approved, the sealing cost will likely be paid for from the FY2021/22 carryover.

Conclusion
At this point, SOBO operations have matured and are continuous with little variation. Having a “dialed in” program makes oversight by SOBO volunteers much easier than in prior years.

The proposed SOBO Budget for 2022/23 is estimated at $272,000. Ideally, SOBO will come back to the SCCIA Board to inform them of costs associated with HOPE Services, but no action will be needed to engage HOPE if costs are in alignment with current costs incurred by Smith and Enright for Zone 2.

SOBO also looks forward to working with the new district coordinator position to provide oversight of the day-to-day management.

District Identity & Streetscape Improvements (DISI)
Committee
Committee Members: Audrey Wardwell, Meryl Rasmussen, Jenna Hanson Abramson Committee Accomplishments FY 2021/22
• Hired a district coordinator.
• Received Salinas
Neighborhood Grant and
successfully activated
Downtown Salinas alleyways
with seasonal art.
• Worked with City of Salinas
staff to streamline
communication and
processes.
• Hired a grant writer and
successfully earned multiple
grants to benefit DISI efforts.
o Received grants
from California Arts
Council, Monterey
Peninsula Foundation, Harden Foundation, and the Arts Council of Monterey County. • Working with Hijos del Sol for mural work.
• Worked as a liaison with City for events in Downtown Salinas (SVFW, Relay for Life, Italia Fest, Laguna Seca Indy Car Event, etc.)
• Enhanced the Downtown banner process.
• Added colored lighting to Salinas Arch.
• Hosted Downtown Salinas walking tour and lunch with Blue Zones, city employees and important stakeholders.
• Coordinated with Rotary to promote downtown (Bruhn and 201 tours, and Bruce Taylor presentation of “What’s to Come Downtown”).
• Continued:
o Coordinating and hosting Tree of Peace lighting event, Salinas official holiday tree. o Downtown Salinas holiday décor and wrapped poles with garland and lights. o Running advertisements on KSBW promoting downtown.
o Communicate with merchants on upcoming events and news via email and Facebook group.

Committee Goals FY 2022/2023
• Continue to enhance Downtown banner program and study whether it could be profitable. • Produce “Welcome to Salinas City Center” bags to new merchants and “Salinas City is my Home” for tenants including swag and relevant information.
• Add speakers for streaming music on light poles throughout Downtown. • Work with Chamber for “Downtown Beer Passport”.
• Enhance communication and visibility with Downtown merchants by way of new District Coordinator.
o District Coordinator to work on development of a Downtown merchant group. o District Coordinator to contact other similar districts for collaboration meetings. • Monthly newsletter and biannual “What’s Happening in SCC” with Mayor and SCCIA board members.
• Work with City of Salinas to implement an event criteria checklist and possible coordinating fee. • Continue:
o Social media postings, print advertisements with the County Weekly, and KSBW commercials.
o Holiday décor and festivities including tree lighting. o Alley activation installations.
o Mural program for Downtown Salinas.
o Partnerships with major Downtown stakeholders: CSUMB @ Salinas City Center, Downtown Rotary, Alvarado on Main, Blue Zones, Taylor Farms, etc.

Land Use Committee (LUC)
Committee Members: Jason Retterer, Catherine Kobrinsky Evans, Steve Ish, Frank Saunders, Larry Bussard, Greg Findley, Brad Slama, Peter Kasavan, Jay DeSerpa, Kevin Dayton Committee Accomplishments FY 2021/22
Ongoing Support for and Implementation of the Downtown Vibrancy Plan Within a five-week period, Monterey County news media reported on progress and achievements of the Downtown Vibrancy Plan. Supporting and attracting more residential and retail development of the Downtown:
• New Businesses and Apartments in Formerly Decrepit Buildings Are Bringing Life to Oldtown Salinas - Monterey County Weekly - September 29, 2022
• Best Downtown Revitalization (2022): Oldtown Salinas - Monterey County Weekly - September 29, 2022
• Heart of Salinas Gets a New Life - Monterey Herald - October 15, 2022 (long, comprehensive article in Sunday edition)
• Salinas City Council Finds a Compromise on Inclusionary Housing Requirements in Downtown - Monterey County Weekly - October 19, 2022
• Historic Downtown Salinas Building Now Ready for People to Call Home - KSWB - October 25, 2022
• 301 Main Street in Downtown Salinas Has First Renters Moving in Next Week - Monterey Herald - October 27, 2022
• Applications Pour in for New Main Street Apartments in Downtown Salinas - Salinas Californian - October 28, 2022
Progress towards implementation of Vintage Sign Ordinance.

City of Salinas plans to engage a consultant to draft a Vintage Sign Ordinance for consideration by Salinas City Council in 2023. 3. Advocated for and assisted individual business with proposed signage.

Initiating a coalition of SV Chamber and Alisal reps to resurrect the Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce’s Business Development Committee (“BDC”) (an advisory group to the City) for an objective review of City of Salinas permit process performance.

Advocated for and supported the Salinas City Council
enactment on June 21, 2022, of the Downtown
Outdoor Dining Forgivable Loan Program with
$150,000 in funding.

Worked in a coalition to review and comment on a
City of Salinas process for permits for outdoor dining
and retail.

Tracked implementation and compliance with the City
of Salinas Food Truck/Mobile Vendor Ordinance in
Downtown. No problems identified.

Achieved a compromise through the Salinas City
Council as various interests made arguments to
completely repeal or completely retain the
conditional exclusion of Downtown from the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance. More expensive adaptive reuse projects will continue to be exempt.

Held a Board Strategic Planning Retreat for the first formal goal-setting meeting since the establishment of the Salinas City Center Improvement Association, Downtown Salinas Community Benefit District, and Downtown Vibrancy Plan in 2015.

Progress toward construction of a parking structure at Church Street & Gabilan Street. Supported City/County adoption of a MOU relating to Downtown, which includes a schedule and timeline for assessing the feasibility of a new structure. Stakeholder meetings occurred to engage the community on possible design alternatives.

Committee Goals FY 2022/2023
Objective: City of Salinas Achieves Reputation Among Regional Developers and Small Businesses as Friendly for Obtaining Permits on Downtown Projects and Activities. • City/County financing, environmental review, and approval of a parking structure at Gabilan and Church with design standards that contribute to the aesthetic character of downtown. • Support development of parking district.
• Drafting and adoption of Zoning Code amendments that would:
o Reform the traffic impact fee structure in the Traffic Fee Program and Ordinance to significantly reduce fees and financial burden on businesses proposing to reuse or repurpose existing buildings.
o Streamline the permit approval process for certain kinds of vintage signs as an initial first step to an ultimate overhaul of sign ordinance and permit program and the creation of a new Vintage (Historic) Sign Ordinance.
• Participate in coalition of SV Chamber and Alisal reps to resurrect and implement prior permit reform plan that was spearheaded by the Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce. Participate in the BDC to advocate for this plan and continuing improvements in the City permit process. • Enactment, implementation, and monitoring of business/user-friendly process for outdoor dining and retail permits.
• Advocate for and support MST Salinas Transit Center Relocation to Intermodal Transportation Center.
• Illumination of Facades of
Historic Buildings on Main
Street.
• Monitor and report dilapidated
vacant buildings for potential
City enforcement action.
• Advocate for and support future
development of a;
o Boutique Hotel.
o Grocery store.
o Student, workforce, and
other housing in
Downtown Salinas.
• Advocate and support relocation
of Farmer’s Market from Main
St. to Intermodal Transportation
Center or other location.
• Support, engage, advocate, and cross promote with the Heritage Park at the ITC. • Advocate for removal of diagonal pedestrian crossings. • Salinas Rotary Arch: Complete 3-way maintenance agreement with SCCIA, Salinas Rotary and City of Salinas.
• Participate in City outreach in their process of updating the General Plan Elements. Assure integration of EDE policies relating to these elements as intended. • Support and advocate for the continued implementation of the Downtown Vibrancy Plan and request City report on progress annually. (at least)
• Support and advocate for the continued implementation of the award-winning Economic Development Element (EDE) of the General Plan and request City report on progress annually as provided in the EDE.
• Seek grant funds to support the work of the LU Committee.

Annual Calendar
Organization Name Date Start Notes Source
City of
Salinas Disbursement 1 by City 12/28/2022
Assessments received +
50% tax exempt parcels MDA
SCCIA
District changes to Engineers
report due 1/31/2023
District boundary changes /
assessment formulas MDA
Accountant 1099's due to Vendors 1/31/2023
SCCIA
President appoints
Nominations Committee 2/15/2023
45 days before annual
meeting BYLAWS
SCCIA
Nominations Committee sends
out Nomination Forms 3/1/2023
30 days before annual
meeting BYLAWS
SCCIA
Deadline for submitting
nominations to NC 3/10/2023
20 days before annual
meeting BYLAWS
SCCIA
Annual Meeting (1st week
April) 4/1/2023
Election of new Directors by
sitting Directors
Appointment of Officers MDA/BYLAWS
Accountant Annual 990 Tax Filing due 4/15/2023
SCCIA Annual Report 4/30/2023 Submit to City Clerk MDA/BYLAWS SCCIA Annual Financial Statement 4/30/2023
Submit to City Clerk /
prepared by CPA MDA/BYLAWS
City of
Salinas Disbursement 2 by City 4/30/2023
Assessments received +
50% tax exempt parcels MDA
SCCIA
Review Committee Goals lists
for progress 5/1/2023
Report to Board by June
meeting
SCCIA
Assessment Data update
"Assessment Records" 6/1/2023
Submit to City Clerk + City
Finance Director MDA/BYLAWS
SCCIA Admin/Staffing Evaluation 6/1/2023
City of
Salinas Disbursement 3 by City 6/30/2023
Assessments received : any
additional amounts MDA
SCCIA 30 Day Dissolution Window 7/21/2023
requires 30% vote
(weighted)
SCCIA
Annual Work Plan & Budget
DRAFT (post by 11/1) 10/1/2023 submit for Board approval BYLAWS SCCIA
Annual Work Plan & Budget
FINAL (approve by 11/30) 11/1/2023
Post on Website / Make
Available BYLAWS

Appendix
2/10/23, 3:39 PM New businesses and apartments in formerly decrepit buildings are bringing life to Oldtown Salinas. | News | montereycountyweekl… https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/new-businesses-and-apartments-in-formerly-decrepit-buildings-are-bringing-life-to-oldtown-… 1/3 https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/new-businesses-and-apartments-in-formerly-decrepitbuildings-are-bringing-life-to-oldtown-salinas/article_12308164-3f5e-11ed-89ba-6b725a0239d6.html New businesses and apartments in formerly decrepit buildings are bringing life to Oldtown Salinas.

Celia Jiménez
Sep 29, 2022
The art deco-inspired interior of Alvarado Street Brewery’s Salinas location nears completion, with an anticipated opening date in late October.

DANIEL DREIFUSS
2/10/23, 3:39 PM New businesses and apartments in formerly decrepit buildings are bringing life to Oldtown Salinas. | News | montereycountyweekl… https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/new-businesses-and-apartments-in-formerly-decrepit-buildings-are-bringing-life-to-oldtown-… 2/3 A watershed moment is happening in Salinas’ downtown. With the remodeling of two iconic buildings underway, a transformation that was already in progress is coming to fruition. The Dick Bruhn building, vacant since a 2016 fire, will be 19 apartments on the second and third floors, with commercial space on the first floor. Just down the block on Main Street, the former craft store Beverly’s is being transformed into a second location for Monterey-based Heirloom Pizza, with a concept that includes a live music venue, set to open in 2023. The former Rabobank building will have 50 studio apartments upstairs, and the first floor will become a new, 5,000-square-foot outpost of Alvarado Street Brewery, which on Sept. 26-27 held a job fair in hopes of hiring up to 40 employees.
“I was looking at Oldtown Salinas for years,” says JC Hill, co-owner of Alvarado Street Brewery.

Recent changes like streetscape modifications that made one-ways into two-way streets, the Salinas arch and more businesses moving in made it the right time to open a new location on Main Street.

Salinas’ Downtown Vibrancy Plan, approved by City Council in 2015, has been in the works for over a decade. In the past couple of years the city invested over $10 million in infrastructure, including sewer and water lines, roads and sidewalks.

Besides infrastructure, city officials wanted to make downtown more enticing for developers. In 2018, they passed an adaptive reuse ordinance, which allows the conversion of non-residential buildings over 50 years old into residential spaces. “We removed a lot of the barriers,” says Lisa Brinton, assistant director in the Community Development Department. Those included parking restrictions and open space requirements.

These revitalized buildings are just the beginning. The old Greyhound Bus station building, which – like the Bruhn and Beverly’s buildings, is also owned by the Taylor Group behind Taylor Farms – is expected to see a makeover into offices or housing. Taylor Farms built its headquarters downtown in 2015, kickstarting progress.

City staff are working with other developers for city-owned parking lots 1, 8 and 12 for different projects, which are early in negotiations. “We’ll see a lot of development in the next three to five years in the downtown,” City Manager Steve Carrigan says. He expects those plans to appear on City Council agendas by early November.
2/10/23, 3:39 PM New businesses and apartments in formerly decrepit buildings are bringing life to Oldtown Salinas. | News | montereycountyweekl… https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/new-businesses-and-apartments-in-formerly-decrepit-buildings-are-bringing-life-to-oldtown-… 3/3 Celia Jiménez
The city is also working with the county to build a three-story, 600-space parking structure on Church and Gabilan streets.

Carrigan says the city has seen an uptick of visitors in downtown Salinas in the past couple of years and with more offices, apartments, and businesses coming into downtown traffic is expected to increase.

Salinas also welcomes outdoor dining and will keep encouraging businesses to obtain permanent outdoor-dining permits.

Some improvements listed in the 2015 Vibrancy Plan remain just ideas, like a grocery store. 2/10/23, 3:41 PM Best Downtown Revitalization (2022) | Editors Picks | montereycountyweekly.com https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/best/2022/editors-picks/best-downtown-revitalization-2022/article_a99917fa-3ab3-11ed-960c-f3cda3b51e2c.h… 1/2 https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/best/2022/editors-picks/best-downtown-revitalization2022/article_a99917fa-3ab3-11ed-960c-f3cda3b51e2c.html Best Downtown Revitalization (2022)
Sep 29, 2022
Oldtown Salinas
You know that long-promised urban renewal that was supposed to make Oldtown Salinas cool? It’s on. The transformation owes much to a one-man redevelopment agency, Bruce Taylor, who moved his company’s (Taylor Farms) headquarters downtown 10 years ago. The results of that investment are tangible and impressive: new restaurants, breweries and retail establishments have sprung up to make Salinas’ downtown lively and fun. In May 2021, a new landmark took hold: a 70-foot welcome arch was erected over Main Street. More is on the way. Alvarado Street Brewery is set to open in fall of 2022 on the ground floor of the old Rabobank tower, which will have 49 apartments above it. The burnt-out Dick Bruhn building, another Taylor project, features 19 apartments above street-level restaurants. The old Beverly’s Fabrics, a classic building, will soon house Heirloom Pizza Co. and a live music venue, and Taylor also bought the long-deserted Greyhound bus depot that he plans to convert into office space and workforce housing. The future is right now for Salinas. 2/10/23, 3:44 PM Heart of Salinas gets a new life – Monterey Herald https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/10/15/heart-of-salinas-gets-a-new-life/ 1/12 By JAMES HERRERA | [email protected] | Monterey Herald PUBLISHED: October 15, 2022 at 6:19 a.m. | UPDATED: December 23, 2022 at 3:05 p.m.

The reinvented Salinas sign that graces the revitalized downtown has become a focal point and favored picture frame for the community. (James Herrera/Monterey Herald)

BUSINESS
Heart of Salinas gets a new life
2/10/23, 3:44 PM Heart of Salinas gets a new life – Monterey Herald https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/10/15/heart-of-salinas-gets-a-new-life/ 2/12 SALINAS – The 100 through 300 blocks of Main Street in Salinas have been referred to as old town, downtown and city center, but whatever it’s called, the heart of Salinas is seeing a resurgence.
“Few people recognize this, but downtown Salinas is an outstanding example of the transformation of a struggling downtown into the transit-oriented, density-housing ideal that the state wants to see to address climate change and improve the quality of life for California residents,” said Kevin Dayton, Salinas City Center Improvement Association government affairs director.

A shift in how the area is perceived is due in large part to the city’s downtown vibrancy plan, said Salinas Mayor Kimbley Craig. The work there is about 90% complete.

Still to come is the possibility of public art and a mural in a key walkway, but those are finishing touches to what appears to be a fully-realized reimagination of a community’s downtown, she said.

The revitalization happened over nine years with planning and community outreach starting in 2012.

The Salinas Downtown Vibrancy Plan was approved in 2015 by the Salinas City Council and Monterey County Board of Supervisors after two years of “community input and discussion,” said Dayton. “Much of the impetus came from property and business owners in the downtown. It was not a city project. A consultant helped us who had experience with transforming Little Italy in San Diego.” The plan’s goal is to preserve Salinas’ connection to history while creating a mix of residences, businesses, civic institutions, recreation, and culture in a safe and vibrant environment.

The city’s center has been transformed in many ways such as, returning to a two-way traffic pattern with a mix of angled- and parallel-parking spaces, expanded walkways and gathering spaces, festoon and mood lighting along the street and a focal point at its heart in the form of an eye-catching nameplate.

Craig said she believes the new, updated Salinas sign that arches about two stories high and 70 feet across Main Street is the defining feature of the reinvigorated downtown. The structure incorporates the name of the city using the same font from an earlier incarnation that was installed in 1915 but removed long ago, and puts it into a modern setting. The sign was designed by local architect Peter Kasavan, funded by the Rotary Club of Salinas and manufactured by Valley Fabrication in Salinas.
2/10/23, 3:44 PM Heart of Salinas gets a new life – Monterey Herald https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/10/15/heart-of-salinas-gets-a-new-life/ 3/12 Getting to this point in the downtown’s revitalization was a result of policy changes in the city a few years ago including the blight accountability ordinance and the adaptive reuse ordinance. Those, along with other provisions in the municipal code, allowed developers to convert some historic buildings into mixed-use projects, said Dayton.

Three major taxpayer-funded construction projects to improve the infrastructure of the downtown — the Main Street Streetscape Project, the West Alisal Downtown Complete Streets Project, and Phase One of the Intermodal Transportation Center/Salinas Rail Extension Kick-Start project — were also key to the downtown Salinas transformation, he said.

The downtown area has a number of buildings that maintain their historic profiles such as the McDougall building, which was built around 1900 on the corner of Main and Gabilan streets. It currently houses businesses including First Awakenings restaurant.

Chris Ulrich, co-owner of First Awakenings, said his business has always been steady “but we’ve seen more people downtown throughout the week. There’s more restaurants and bars and things to do.”
Ulrich said parking is a problem since the revitalization change to two-way traffic ate up some spots.

Ulrich and his partner Craig Bell own locations in Monterey and Salinas and have had the downtown restaurant for 30 years. He likes the fact there is more competition on Main Street.
“More business promotes more business,” said Ulrich. “It gives people more of a choice.”
The downtown area has a parking structure near the Steinbeck Center along with street parking and a number of parking lots, but Dayton said more parking garages are being planned, including one the city and county are working on to accommodate more people living in the downtown area in the future.

The intersection at Main and Gabilan streets is also home to the Glikbarg building built in 1907 to house the Salinas City Bank. It’s currently home to Dubber’s Oldtown Bar and Grill on the northwest corner.
2/10/23, 3:44 PM Heart of Salinas gets a new life – Monterey Herald https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/10/15/heart-of-salinas-gets-a-new-life/ 4/12 But new buildings and reinvented spaces also populate old town exemplified by projects from Bruce Taylor, who first constructed the Taylor Farms headquarters in 2015 in the 100 block of Main Street where the Cominos Hotel once stood. Taylor later said in a company newsletter that this was the first step toward his goal of revitalizing the city and that by opening the company headquarters in the center of town, it would create “the living room of Salinas,” and be the catalyst for change in the area.

The much-anticipated renovation of what was last the burned-out shell of the former Dick Bruhn building is nearing completion. When the project at the property, owned by Bruce Taylor’s Taylor Fresh Foods, is finished it wall add 19 residential units and retail spaces to downtown Salinas. (James Herrera/Monterey Herald)
Another of Taylor’s projects is taking the building he bought in 2020 from a burnedout shell and turning it into a mixed-use space of 19 residential units and five retail spots. The building was originally constructed in 1925, at the southwest corner of Main and Alisal streets, as the headquarters of the agribusiness sector in the Salinas Valley, housing the Farmers Mercantile Exchange. It would later become a Montgomery Ward department store, then home to Dick Bruhn, a clothing store, which occupied the space for 57 years until bankruptcy closed it in 2007. A fire broke out in the unoccupied building in February 2016, leaving only the exterior walls intact. Today, the nearly-finished renovated building has design elements that reflect the Taylor headquarters property on the opposite end of Main Street.

Across the street from the Taylor project on the southeast corner of the Main and Alisal intersection, is a classic example of an art deco to moderne building built around 1930. It was last the Rabobank offices and is now a project by Brad Slama who is turning the upper floors of one of the tallest buildings in downtown into 50 studio apartments. The first floor will house the new Alvarado on Main, an offshoot of Alvarado Street Brewery in Monterey.
2/10/23, 3:44 PM Heart of Salinas gets a new life – Monterey Herald https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/10/15/heart-of-salinas-gets-a-new-life/ 5/12 A former bank building constructed in an art deco to moderne style at 301 Main Street is undergoing a renovation to make it a mixed-use structure of stuio apartments and a dining and drinking establishment on its first floor. (James Herrera/Monterey Herald) Yet another Taylor property in downtown is the former Beverly’s Fabrics at 344 Main St., an art deco structure that is in the process of becoming Heirloom Pizza’s second location aside from its premiere spot in Monterey.

In the 200 block of Main Street, United Way Monterey County acquired a building in June for its Community Impact Center that was built circa 1900. The Salinas Elks Lodge occupied the second floor for many decades.
“It feels like we’ve moved into a thriving zone. We’re able to walk to see our partners at the city and county, and it’s great to be able to meet up with folks at some of the amazing restaurants and cafes,” said United Way Monterey County President and CEO Katy Castagna. “The city itself is more exciting, walkable, safe and visually appealing than ever before.”
Dayton said that soon “We’ll have five breweries on Main Street.” With downtown Salinas having a renaissance, the community has come out to experience the new vibe.

Steve McShane, CEO of the Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce said the improvements to downtown have been “groundbreaking for the city and the region” and reports that a majority of merchants, property owners and customers have responded with positive feedback.
“Success doesn’t come without room for improvement,” said McShane. “There have been requests for increased parking and more downtown housing for people that don’t want cars and want to be close to either work or nightlife.” 2/10/23, 3:44 PM Heart of Salinas gets a new life – Monterey Herald https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/10/15/heart-of-salinas-gets-a-new-life/ 6/12 He said that “before the paint was even dry, downtown was host to expanded, existing and new events.”
Families choose from the bounty of produce and vendor goods at the weekly farmers market in downtown Salinas. (James Herrera/Monterey Herald) From a weekly farmers market, to festivals, celebrations and car shows, the three blocks of Main Street has become a draw.

The Salinas City Center Farmers Market, which operates year-round from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. each Saturday, fills the 300 block of Main Street between Alisal and San Luis streets with a number of vendors selling produce, specialty food items, arts and crafts, and other goods, to eager crowds rain or shine. “There are a number of special events occurring in downtown Salinas,” said McShane. “This has been a boon for most businesses. For any merchants that have been inconvenienced, feedback is important as we continue to develop a programming schedule that works best for everyone.”
He added that newcomers to downtown Salinas are thrilled by the improvements and the charm.
“This last weekend I was in two downtown establishments and ran into folks from Watsonville and San Jose visiting due to positive word of mouth,” said McShane. “Downtown Salinas is going through a renaissance and I’m truly optimistic that the positive feedback could be a game changer for the entire city.” 2/10/23, 3:44 PM Heart of Salinas gets a new life – Monterey Herald https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/10/15/heart-of-salinas-gets-a-new-life/ 7/12 At the top of downtown is the National Steinbeck Center in the CSU Monterey Bay at Salinas City Center building.

The university acquired the Steinbeck Center in 2015, purchasing the building and the land from the city while keeping the Steinbeck Center and museum as a tenant in a lease agreement. The facility is a conference, meeting, and event space for the community.

An important asset to the future of downtown Salinas is located nearby at the northwest corner of Market and North Main streets.

The Intermodal Transportation Center has recently seen its own renovation in anticipation of Caltrain connecting Salinas with Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco.

Once Caltrain rail service between Salinas and points north becomes reality, the draw of Salinas City Center will be tested in its ability to attract visitors to spend time and money downtown.
“We currently estimate that service could begin as early as 2025, once the improvements have been constructed at Salinas and Gilroy,” said Christina Watson, Transportation Agency for Monterey County director of planning. “The project is currently in the final design and property acquisition stage. We expect to go out to bid for construction in early 2024.”
The first phase of the Monterey County Rail Extension project focused on improvements to the existing Salinas train station and was completed in early 2021.

It included extending Lincoln Avenue, installing bike lanes and storage, improving pedestrian access and designating loading berths for Monterey-Salinas Transit and intercity buses, while constructing and repaving the parking lots.

Phase two will be the construction of a train layover facility for Caltrain, including a train crew base building and storage shed, fencing and lighting, as well as the construction of a new platform.

Amtrak’s Coast Starlight is expected to continue to stop at the existing Salinas train depot once a day on its round trip between Los Angeles and Seattle, said Watson.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County and its partners had done multiple ridership studies over the years and estimated between 150,000 to 520,000 people would ride the rails annually between Salinas and northern points depending on frequency, type, and timing of the trains. 2/10/23, 3:44 PM Heart of Salinas gets a new life – Monterey Herald https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/10/15/heart-of-salinas-gets-a-new-life/ 8/12 “We have not done a new ridership study since the pandemic decimated transit ridership across the state, but Caltrans has a new rail ridership model they are using for the forthcoming 2022 State Rail Plan, and we look forward to finding out the results of that analysis,” said Watson.

A hotel could possibly be built at the train station to give visitors a lodging opportunity close to Salinas City Center, said Craig.

The Intermodal Transportation Center recently saw the California Welcome Center and its Heritage Center museum move into the former Southern Pacific Freight Depot No. 1A Station Place. Operated by the Salinas Valley Tourism and Visitors Bureau, the welcome center aims to help people discover the region’s attractions.

The idea is to expand the heritage center display space, eventually making it part of a heritage park at the train station site. It would include the first mayor’s house already at the property and the Monterey and Salinas Valley Railroad Group, as part of the transportation center.

Sam Farr, a former Central Coast congressman who represented the region for more than two decades, was at an event recently held at the Heritage Center and was impressed.
“We have the opportunity,” Farr said, “to develop the Salinas Valley into one of the most exciting rural tourism places in the world.”
James Herrera | Reporter
James Herrera has been with The Herald for more than three decades, during which he has been an ad designer, staff artist, newsroom graphic artist, videographer and now a reporter. He covers business and the cities of Seaside, Marina, Sand City and Del Rey Oaks. Herrera can be reached via email at [email protected] or by phone at 831-726-4344. [email protected]
 Follow James Herrera @jamerra1
Tags:  Newsletter
2/10/23, 3:43 PM Salinas City Council finds a compromise on inclusionary housing requirements in downtown. | Monterey County NOW Intro | mont… https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/mcnow_intro/salinas-city-council-finds-a-compromise-on-inclusionary-housing-requirements-in-downt… 1/4 https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/mcnow_intro/salinas-city-council-finds-a-compromise-oninclusionary-housing-requirements-in-downtown/article_d1c3a852-500d-11ed-9c8e-33a984e133bf.html Salinas City Council finds a compromise on inclusionary housing requirements in downtown.

Celia Jiménez
Oct 19, 2022
Dozens of residents celebrate outside of Salinas City Hall on Oct. 18, following the council’s decision to modify an inclusionary housing exemption in downtown Salinas. Celia Jiménez Celia Jiménez here, thinking about how compromise is a great baseline to start a dialogue between opposing parties.
2/10/23, 3:43 PM Salinas City Council finds a compromise on inclusionary housing requirements in downtown. | Monterey County NOW Intro | mont… https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/mcnow_intro/salinas-city-council-finds-a-compromise-on-inclusionary-housing-requirements-in-downt… 2/4 Yesterday, Oct. 18, Salinas City Council decided to keep an inclusionary housing exemption in place for adaptive-reuse building projects only and remove it for new construction. This decision was a compromise that the council hopes will continue to incentivize developers who want to remodel buildings in downtown, and also create more opportunity for lower-income residents to live in the area. “I know what it's like to live in affordable housing and to be discussed in a way that makes you disposable,” said an emotional City Councilmember Anthony Rocha. (Rocha was the one who pushed for reviewing this exemption, five years after it was first introduced.) “We are not dispensable. We should be treated as a priority because this is our community.” The plan as approved is a compromise: No requirement for existing buildings (which are more costly for developers) and reinstate the requirement of inclusionary units in new construction.

When Rocha’s motion passed, residents inside council chambers responded with cheers and applause, then moved outside to celebrate this win. Over 100 people showed up. Many wore green and held Center for Community Advocacy flags. People spoke in English, Mixteco and Spanish. Most supported removing the inclusionary housing exception in its entirety. Jesus Estrada, an organizer with CCA, says if inclusionary housing was constructed downtown, he would apply to live there.

For over two hours—half of yesterday’s council meeting—city staff, councilmembers and residents shared their thoughts about the inclusionary housing ordinance exemption in downtown Salinas (which, by the way, extends beyond Main Street; It’s called Central City Overlay).
“This ordinance is for the whole city, not just where it's convenient,” said Chris Barrera, Salinas 2055 LULAC president. “Oldtown belongs to all of us—the entire city, the residents of Salinas. And we all deserve an opportunity.” Barrera emphasizes that all people should have the opportunity to live in different parts of the city.

Frank Saunders, a downtown property owner, and Kevin Dayton, of the Salinas City Center Improvement Association and the Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce, highlighted the revitalization currently underway in downtown Salinas. Saunders noted that 2/10/23, 3:43 PM Salinas City Council finds a compromise on inclusionary housing requirements in downtown. | Monterey County NOW Intro | mont… https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/mcnow_intro/salinas-city-council-finds-a-compromise-on-inclusionary-housing-requirements-in-downt… 3/4 since the city put the exception in place, only two residential projects—the Bruhn and Rabobank buildings—were remodeled in the area. (Units at the Bruhn Building are renting for $2,500-$3,500/month; in the Rabobank Building, studios are going for $1,500/month.) Natalie Herendeen, executive director of CCA, passionately asked for creative solutions. “If they're building houses, we have housing and we have jobs. Find ways to incentivize them, not at the cost of community members and not at the cost of well-being.” Developers have shared that without an exemption to the city’s ordinance, they wouldn’t be remodeling buildings and contributing to the Oldtown revitalization. And there’s the rub:
“If housing isn't built, there is no inclusionary housing,” noted Megan Hunter, the city’s director of community development.

Salinas’ downtown area has the highest number of affordable units in the city, and five years ago—after over two years of negotiations—developers and housing advocates came out with a plan to bring more housing to downtown: To exempt housing projects from the city’s inclusionary housing requirement, requiring that 12 to 20 percent of units are set aside for affordability criteria established by HUD.
“This is aimed at getting the market rate developers to do their fair share,” says Matt Huerta, a Salinas resident and housing advocate about the council’s decision. He thinks there is a commitment from the city to provide more affordable housing. “I think it was a very good day for all of us.” He adds that showing up to council meetings can make a difference:
“Without that pressure from the community, they would not have made that decision today,” Huerta says.

Ultimately the council voted 6-1 (Steve McShane dissenting) for the compromise plan. It marks a partial win for both developers and affordable housing advocates. The city’s inclusionary housing ordinance—including the Oldtown exemption—will be reviewed again in June.

Read full newsletter here.

Salinas strikes a compromise for affordable housing downtown. Shawarma off the beaten path. 2/10/23, 3:43 PM Salinas City Council finds a compromise on inclusionary housing requirements in downtown. | Monterey County NOW Intro | mont… https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/mcnow_intro/salinas-city-council-finds-a-compromise-on-inclusionary-housing-requirements-in-downt… 4/4 Celia Jiménez

RELATED LINKS
Get fresh local news and commentary in your inbox, subscribe here. 2/10/23, 3:45 PM Historic California building transformed into residential tower https://www.ksbw.com/article/historic-salinas-building-transformed-into-residential-tower/41760919 1/7  SHOW TRANSCRIPT
Advertisement
Historic downtown Salinas building now ready for people to call home Updated: 3:07 PM PDT Oct 25, 2022
Infinite Scroll Enabled
NOWCAST Watch on Demand 
  56°

SEVERE WEATHER
There are currently 2 active weather alerts
 1 / 2  

GET LOCAL BREAKING NEWS ALERTS
The latest breaking updates, delivered straight to your email inbox.

SUBMIT
Privacy Notice

Your Email Address
2/10/23, 3:45 PM Historic California building transformed into residential tower https://www.ksbw.com/article/historic-salinas-building-transformed-into-residential-tower/41760919 2/7 SALINAS, Calif. —
Ariana Jaso
Anchor/Reporter
A project in downtown Salinas that has been years in the making is now finished and ready for tenants.

The six-story Salinas National Bank building at 301 South Main St. has been transformed into a residential tower with commercial space on the bottom floor. Alvarado Street Brewery will be the building's first commercial tenant.

Advertisement
First look inside the Alvarado Street Brewery's newest location For the past four years, the apartment building has been under construction by local developer Brad Slama. The project is now complete and ready for people to call home.
“The developer is really recognizing the historical elements and preserving them all along the way. You see that downstairs in the lobby where you get to see the beautiful art deco murals all throughout, which just add to the richness and moodiness of art," said Audrey Wardwell, property manager at 36 North Properties. "We have 50 studios and the developer was able to maximize the square footage of this building to able the most housing possible."
It's the first time the building will be anything other than a financial institution since it was built in 1930.

Salinas old bank building looks towards redevelopment
“There's a lot of excitement around this and I think what we're going to see is even more vibrancy and even more attention to an already exciting downtown Salinas,” said Steve McShane, president of the Salinas Chamber of Commerce.

The project is expected to bring more housing, a quality of life and a positive economic impact to the downtown area. “You have the restaurant down on the bottom floor, so you've got more jobs. You also have people up here shopping, having an element of an economic benefit to downtown, all just by living in it,” Wardwell said.

The apartments are already signing tenants up for leases with move-in dates beginning Nov. 1. Alvarado Street Brewery is set to open its new brewpub on Nov. 18.
2/10/23, 3:45 PM 301 Main Street in downtown Salinas has first renters moving in next week – Monterey Herald https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/10/27/301-main-street-in-downtown-salinas-has-first-renters-moving-in-next-week/ 1/5 By JAMES HERRERA | [email protected] | Monterey Herald PUBLISHED: October 27, 2022 at 2:49 p.m. | UPDATED: October 27, 2022 at 2:49 p.m. 301 Main Street, the new residential living space of 50 studio apartments in downtown Salinas is ready for the first tenants to move in on Nov. 1, 2022. (James Herrera/Monterey Herald)

BUSINESS
301 Main Street in downtown
Salinas has first renters moving in
next week
2/10/23, 3:45 PM 301 Main Street in downtown Salinas has first renters moving in next week – Monterey Herald https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/10/27/301-main-street-in-downtown-salinas-has-first-renters-moving-in-next-week/ 2/5 SALINAS — An impressive-looking art deco building in downtown Salinas once housed bank operations, but now the 90-year-old structure’s renovation is complete, bringing large-scale residential apartment housing to the city’s center and more life to the 100 to 300 blocks of Old Town.

Brad Slama bought the historic six-story building at 301 Main St. six years ago for $4.5 million and has since poured his energy into the idea of providing living space on the upper floors while creating room for a gathering place in the form of a restaurant/bar on the first floor.
“I believe more people living in downtown will help the vibrancy project move forward,” said Slama, referring to the plan approved by the Salinas City Council and Monterey County Board of Supervisors in 2015, which has a stated goal to preserve Salinas’ connection to history, while creating a mix of residences, businesses, civic institutions, recreation and culture in a safe and vibrant environment. “Leasing has been going great, … people will start moving in Nov. 1,” said Audrey Wardwell, broker and owner of 36 North Properties. “We have six leased so far and 20 applications in … and great feedback from the showings.” There are five floors of living space that were created after demolishing and gutting for the residential units. Each of the 50 luxury studio apartments has a clean, modern design and offers different floor plans, ranging in size from 350 square feet to 550 square feet. Units have multiple windows capitalizing on views of the city, and most with either the Gabilan or Santa Lucia mountains in sight from the high-ceiling rooms. Bathrooms are outfitted with custom walk-in showers using tile and Moen shower systems, and LED-illuminated vanity mirrors. Kitchens include stainless steel smart appliances, quartz countertops, and hardwood flooring covers each space.

There are laundry rooms on each floor that use a phone app to operate the washers and dryers, elevators, on-site management, private, 24-hour locked entrances with secure entry for tenants and guests, and parking. Storage units in the basement are available for an additional cost.

Units are priced from $1,650 to $2,200, with utilities — power, water, trash — included.

Slama held onto the art deco design elements that give the building character from the exterior facade and entryways for residents along the side and back, and into what is now front-facing Alvarado on Main on the first floor. 2/10/23, 3:45 PM 301 Main Street in downtown Salinas has first renters moving in next week – Monterey Herald https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/10/27/301-main-street-in-downtown-salinas-has-first-renters-moving-in-next-week/ 3/5 “I told Alvarado (Street Brewery) I wanted them here,” said Slama. “I knew they had a cult following.”
The brewery restaurant will have its formal opening on Nov. 18, he said.

Walking into the front entrance at 301 Main St. into the dining establishment, one passes through gold doorways topped with soaring eagles. The place is the offshoot of Alvarado Street Brewery in Monterey. Alvarado on Main incorporates original design elements from almost a century ago into its interior including existing wall treatments and reliefs, to replicating the chandeliers found in a small foyer and incorporating them into the grand lighting scheme for the brewery restaurant. The space has high ceilings, a huge bar, booths and lounge areas. A mezzanine offers more space for events or additional seating, and the restaurant kitchen has repurposed the old bank vault into working and storage space.

Brad Slama stands inside one of the studio apartment units with views of the Santa Lucia Mountains and downtown Salinas. (James Herrera/Monterey Herald) Slama said he learned a lot from his father when as a student at Salinas High School, he would join him on the job. His first taste of converting space into residential units came when he helped to create 10 apartment units on the third floor above the former Penny Farthing when he was 18. Out of high school, he worked for an electrical company and started flipping houses on his own, and went on to convert spaces into apartment units in Monterey and Salinas.
2/10/23, 3:45 PM 301 Main Street in downtown Salinas has first renters moving in next week – Monterey Herald https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/10/27/301-main-street-in-downtown-salinas-has-first-renters-moving-in-next-week/ 4/5 “The opportunity presented itself,” said Slama about his foray into buying the bank building and converting it into apartments. He believes in taking existing structures and infill to provide housing instead of taking farmland to build new homes. “Most want to build traditional developments but the market I deal in is very niche” and takes a certain amount of faith to accomplish, said Slama. “You have to have trust and faith in the city councils and planning commissions to make the right decisions.”
He said the 301 Main St. project was for him “more a labor of love than a labor for profit.”
Now that his downtown Salinas project has reached this stage, Slama says he will next focus on his developments on Garden Road in Monterey. “I have three at the moment and am looking at two more,” said Slama who added that the current projects could produce 405 new living units for Monterey.

Author James Herrera | Reporter
James Herrera has been with The Herald for more than three decades, during which he has been an ad designer, staff artist, newsroom graphic artist, videographer and now a reporter. He covers business and the cities of Seaside, Marina, Sand City and Del Rey Oaks. Herrera can be reached via email at [email protected] or by phone at 831-726-4344. [email protected]
 Follow James Herrera @jamerra1
Tags:  Newsletter
2/10/23, 3:46 PM Apartment applications pour in downtown Salinas https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2022/10/28/apartment-applications-pour-downtown-salinas/10609725002/ 2/4 NEWS
Applications pour in for new Main Street
apartments in downtown Salinas
Jocelyn Ortega Salinas Californian
Published 9:56 a.m. PT Oct. 28, 2022
The smell of fresh paint, sunshine spilling through a window, and the sounds of a bustling downtown Salinas will soon be a reality for residents of a new studio apartment complex.

The 50-unit complex, located at 301 Main Street, is five years in the making. City leaders and housing advocates call it "a step in the right direction," while others are questioning whether the units are affordable for residents.

The development was made possible through an adaptive reuse ordinance passed by Salinas City Council in 2018, which made it easier for developers to convert vacant underused commercial buildings into residential buildings. The complex was formerly the Rabobank building.

Property manager and 36 North Properties broker Audrey Wardwell says it has been a busy few weeks taking calls and multiple applications as they approach some of the first move-ins in November.
"We had some units that were reserved prior to finalizing all of the permits," Wardwell said. "We hope to add more people soon and just breathe life into this beautiful product." Wardwell is hopeful all of the units will be filled by the end of the year.

The units include high ceilings, hardwood floors, craftsman style cabinetry, stainless steel appliances and are priced between $1,550 - $2,200, depending on the floor plan.

Residents will have laundry room on every floor with appliances operated through an smartphone application, and 29 storage rooms in the basement to rent.

Restaurants and shops are just a few steps away. The apartments also sits above a new restaurant and bar created by the owners of Alvarado Street Brewery. "We haven't had anything like this in downtown," Wardwell said. "This building was built back in the 1930s and has always been a financial institution. Now, this building gets to give back to the community by bringing people to live in it, to walk around and shop at local businesses, and adds jobs with the new downstairs restaurant. 2/10/23, 3:46 PM Apartment applications pour in downtown Salinas https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2022/10/28/apartment-applications-pour-downtown-salinas/10609725002/ 3/4 Council member and Salinas Chamber of Commerce CEO Steve McShane envisions a positive economic impact resulting from this new housing. "The city is motivated to do more in order to bring additional parking, housing and commercial office space investment to downtown Salinas," McShane said.

Across the street at 300 N. Main St., is another building that will soon provide additional housing units to the downtown area. The ground floor of the former Dick Bruhn building is currently under renovations to be used for commercial space while the second floor is set to have 19 rental units.

Advertisement for these units will be made sometime in the next month, according to city officials.

While all the new rental units get closer to opening, Council member Anthony Rocha questions if they will be affordable for some community members, particularly families and young professionals.
"We need to work harder to ensure nobody is left out when it comes to the revitalization of our Downtown," Rocha said. "We need more housing, but we also need to prioritize affordable housing that meets the needs of our farmworkers, teachers, hospitality workers, and all other essential workers who tirelessly serve our community." McShane says the city will continue efforts to provide for and address the affordable housing need.
"We want equality housing for types across the city," McShane said. "Sometimes you see a concentration of low and very low in one part of the city, and market rate in another part of the city. We're doing what we can so that the entire city includes housing for all categories of income."
Wardwell says she is hopeful these new housing units are just the start of more growth to come.
"I pray projects like this let other developers know that the city of Salinas wants to be revitalized and we have plenty of other buildings waiting for them," she said.

With just days away from welcoming the first new tenants, Wardwell says she is excited and encourages more people to apply and call this building their new home. 2/10/23, 4:15 PM Salinas Making Downtown Vibrant
https://mailchi.mp/landwatch/salinas-making-downtown-vibrant?e=b4af8b0fb1 1/4 View this email in your browser
Salinas is Leading in Policy & Outcomes!
Dear Friends,
Please join me in celebrating the growing vibrancy of Downtown Salinas.

In late October, Michael DeLapa and I
toured the newly opened 301 Main Street
mixed-use apartment building in Salinas.

The ground floor of the art moderne
building—previously Rabobank—is the
newest location for Alvarado Street
Brewery; above are five floors of beautiful
studio apartments. Many of the 49 units
are affordable by design to moderate
income residents of Salinas. Across the
street is 300 Main Street—the revitalized
Bruhn Building—consisting of ground floor commercial space with 19 renovated apartments above. Original construction for the buildings was in 1925 and 1930 respectively.

Not only is the 300 Main block a shining example of mixed-use redevelopment with attractive ground-floor retail—it is a harbinger for things to come as the City of Salinas fulfills the promise of its Downtown Vibrancy Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2015 and lauded by LandWatch in a letter to then-mayor Joe Gunter:

Subscribe Past Issues Translate
2/10/23, 4:15 PM Salinas Making Downtown Vibrant
https://mailchi.mp/landwatch/salinas-making-downtown-vibrant?e=b4af8b0fb1 2/4 “This multi-year initiative is intended to foster economic renewal for Salinas’s downtown. We strongly support the Plan’s focus on encouraging mixed-use development with an emphasis on apartments as well as creating a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly downtown.”
Sound familiar? It should, because LandWatch’s position in 2015 is consistent with the Housing Element Policy Principles we developed in 2022 and which guide LandWatch’s advocacy now.

The Downtown Salinas
Vibrancy Plan wouldn’t
have been possible without
a coordinated effort by the
City Council, the County of
Monterey (which has
several properties
downtown), and staff who
crafted and reviewed the
ordinances at the core of
the Plan. Downtown
property owners, merchants, and community members also volunteered their time and expertise in crafting it.

Salinas set forth the vision in 2015 with the Vibrancy Plan and followed up in 2018 with an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance in 2018 permitting residential redevelopment of buildings older than 50 years in Downtown Salinas. In 2019, a blight prohibition ordinance passed the City Council, specifically targeting the blocks downtown where 301 Main is located and compelling further redevelopment.

Streamlining provisions in the form of expedited permit processing and reduced impact fees came as a direct result of consultation with builders and developers in creating the Vibrancy Plan. The authors call this “investment thinking”—an approach that holds promise for jurisdictions across the county—especially those on the Peninsula with similar potential for intensification of mixed use infill development in their upcoming Housing Element updates.

In recent correspondence with LandWatch, Brad Slama—the developer behind the 301 Main project—shared this with us:

Subscribe Past Issues Translate
2/10/23, 4:15 PM Salinas Making Downtown Vibrant
https://mailchi.mp/landwatch/salinas-making-downtown-vibrant?e=b4af8b0fb1 3/4 “I’m thrilled that we were able to have your support on this project from start to finish. LandWatch supporting adaptive reuse proposals at key junctures has been pivotal.”
Please join LandWatch in advocating for more “investment thinking” as Monterey County communities update their Housing Elements during 2023.

When we know the times and dates for policy input opportunities, you’ll be the first to know.

Sincerely,
Gabriel Sanders
Deputy Director
What is in a
Housing Element?
General Plans are the blueprint for a
how a community grows and where.

There are nine required elements of
a General Plan including: land use,
circulation, housing, conservation,
open space, noise, safety,
environmental justice, and air quality.

State law requires local governments
update their housing elements every
five to eight years. Typically, the
Housing Element contains an
assessment of needs, lists
constraints on housing, provides an
opportunities analysis and site
assessment, a review of past plans
and performance, plus new housing
element goals.

An Intro to
CEQA
Did you know that the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—
pronounced “see-quah”—requires
three main steps? First, projects
must be reviewed to determine the
extent of impacts and where
feasible, those impacts must be
reduced through mitigation
measures. Second, those impacts
must be disclosed to the public and
decision makers prior to project
approval. And, third, the public is
guaranteed the right to participate in
the environmental review process
prior to project approval during public
comment periods and public
hearings. Learn more online.

Subscribe Past Issues Translate
2/10/23, 4:15 PM Salinas Making Downtown Vibrant
https://mailchi.mp/landwatch/salinas-making-downtown-vibrant?e=b4af8b0fb1 4/4 Website Facebook Twitter Email YouTube
Copyright © 2023 LandWatch Monterey County, All rights reserved.

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Donate Now
Subscribe Past Issues Translate
3/1/23, 11:38 AM A Day Trip to Salinas Offers a Variety of Stellar New Dining Options | Good Times https://www.goodtimes.sc/a-day-trip-to-salinas-offers-a-variety-of-stellar-new-dining-options/?fbclid=IwAR0q5Fs7A8EhuHJV-ubjnRqMUhUAU3rMyMLL6jPftPsr-IOXEVdNB9g0yzA 1/4 A Day Trip to Salinas Offers a
Variety of Stellar New Dining
Options
By Mark C. Anderson February 28, 2023
The former Rabobank that is now Alvarado on Main retains select vault doors as decor.

PHOTO: Mark C. Anderson
Oldtown Salinas’ latest foodie addition
will feature some of the best deep-dish
pizza in the tri-county area, which is good
to hear.

To learn it will also include a concert
venue, banquet hall and—be still, miniumbrella lovers—a tiki bar gets toward crazy good.

So it goes with Heirloom Pizza 2.0,
coming to historic Main Street in late
spring or early summer.

Co-owner Michael Foley, who once
worked at Felton Pantry and played in a
Santa Cruz-based band, knows the plans
for their 12,000 square feet sound
ambitious but emerge from simple
passions.
“It has all our favorite things: tiki bar, live
music, pizza,” he says. “It’s going to be a
3/1/23, 11:38 AM A Day Trip to Salinas Offers a Variety of Stellar New Dining Options | Good Times https://www.goodtimes.sc/a-day-trip-to-salinas-offers-a-variety-of-stellar-new-dining-options/?fbclid=IwAR0q5Fs7A8EhuHJV-ubjnRqMUhUAU3rMyMLL6jPftPsr-IOXEVdNB9g0yzA 2/4 jewel of Salinas’ downtown
revitalization.”
Co-owner Kristen Wood adds that the
drinks and foodstuffs will thrive on fresh
produce and homemade dressings that
make Heirloom Monterey a community
go-to.
“We’re fully excited to bring all the fresh
ingredients we currently use,” she says,
“while expanding on what we already do.”
But the craziest thing about Heirloom is
that it’s only the latest savory element
coming amid the ongoing resurrection of
Oldtown.

Over a half dozen spots have settled into
spaces within recent months, which
inspired Good Times to take a field trip to
the Salad Bowl of the World. Here appear
a few to prioritize in alphabetical order:

Alvarado on Main: The latest installment
from the award-winning Alvarado Street
Brewery team occupies a former bank
with soaring ceilings. It opened in
November and hosts a packed house every
time I stop by. The cinematic ambiance
draws visitors, the casual-contemporary
fare (think lobster rolls and Valley
flatbreads), craft cocktails, a raw bar and
—yes—outstanding beer.

Altura Lounge & Bistro/Cali Glizzy Hot
Dogs: Altura debuted full-service in an
indoor-outdoor venue just off Main Street
last week. The menu stars rustic Italian
finds like Nonna’s lasagna, Little Sicily
calzones, linguini and clams and ovenbaked fennel-sausage sandwiches. Sister spot Cali Glizzy came a week or so before
on the opposite side of Main with loaded
3/1/23, 11:38 AM A Day Trip to Salinas Offers a Variety of Stellar New Dining Options | Good Times https://www.goodtimes.sc/a-day-trip-to-salinas-offers-a-variety-of-stellar-new-dining-options/?fbclid=IwAR0q5Fs7A8EhuHJV-ubjnRqMUhUAU3rMyMLL6jPftPsr-IOXEVdNB9g0yzA 3/4 hot dogs like the “So Salinas,” with nacho
cheese, grilled onions, jalapeños and
crushed Hot Cheetos on a Hawaiian roll.

Brew-N-Krew Ale House: Salinas natives
Marlene Garcia and Steven Corona
launched their atypical Latinx-leaning
beer spot—resplendent with pink
feathered walls and a working brewery—
last spring. House beers take on names
like La Chika Freza, Lokura and Ponte Las
Piñas, and the resulting vibe gets social
fast.

Last Call Bar and Grill: This joint came
online in summer with caloric abandon,
throwing down six types of chicken strips,
seven takes on wings, and loaded baked
potatoes, Philly cheese steaks, flap steaks
and smoked rib tips to boot. Full bar and a
youthful vibe too.

Mangia Eat and Drink on Main: The
thoroughly family-run and homespun
spot arrived amid Covid and immediately
earned honors as one of the year’s best
new restaurants. The formula—beyond
dad in the kitchen, mom at the counter
and kids everywhere else: from-scratch
Italian items with attention to detail. The
truffle-infused gnocchi in gorgonzola
cream is a keeper.

In other words, throwing a head of lettuce
around Oldtown is hard without hitting a
new spot, a forthcoming debut or a
storefront with potential. Among them is a
massive mixed-use project at 300 Main,
which could host four restaurants and/or
retail spots on its bottom floor.

One irony that brings up: Salinas is a place
that’s both famous internationally and
3/1/23, 11:38 AM A Day Trip to Salinas Offers a Variety of Stellar New Dining Options | Good Times https://www.goodtimes.sc/a-day-trip-to-salinas-offers-a-variety-of-stellar-new-dining-options/?fbclid=IwAR0q5Fs7A8EhuHJV-ubjnRqMUhUAU3rMyMLL6jPftPsr-IOXEVdNB9g0yzA 4/4 under-appreciated locally—which now
merits an update.
3/27/23, 9:53 AM How urban planning transformed downtown Salinas into Monterey County’s most walkable streetscape. | Cover Collections | mont… https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/cover_collections/how-urban-planning-transformed-downtown-salinas-into-monterey-county-s-most-wal… 1/4 https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/cover_collections/how-urban-planning-transformed-downtownsalinas-into-monterey-county-s-most-walkable-streetscape/article_f6f70a18-bdec-11ed-a799-83eb3312f9ff.html How urban planning transformed downtown Salinas into
Monterey County’s most walkable streetscape.

Rey Mashayekhi
Mar 9, 2023
Kevin Dayton of the Salinas City Center Improvement Association helped shepherd the transformation of Main Street in Salinas by bringing together public officials and private landlords.

DANIEL DREIFUSS
3/27/23, 9:53 AM How urban planning transformed downtown Salinas into Monterey County’s most walkable streetscape. | Cover Collections | mont… https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/cover_collections/how-urban-planning-transformed-downtown-salinas-into-monterey-county-s-most-wal… 2/4 IT’S TAKEN YEARS OF PLANNING, tens of millions of dollars and a pandemic’s worth of disruption, but Salinas is now home to one of the newest and more notable urban core revitalizations in California. Monterey County’s largest city has seen its center spruced up through a coordinated effort involving public agencies and private investors – with the result of a beautified downtown that promises to draw more foot traffic, lure more residents and generate more economic activity.

The heart of the ongoing transformation is Main Street. Since Salinas City Council approved its Downtown Vibrancy Plan in 2015, the three blocks stretching north from San Luis Street up to the National Steinbeck Center have seen improvements including more than 50,000 square feet of newly paved concrete and sidewalks; 56 newly planted trees; new electrical, lighting and traffic signal systems; and updated landscaping equipped with an automatic irrigation system. There’s also the 70-foot-long, 17,000-pound steel arch now spanning Main Street, emblazoned with its city’s name in bold white letters, that has helped establish a sense of place.

Mixed-use redevelopments like 301 Main St., where the popular Alvarado Street Brewery has taken the street retail space beneath 50 luxury studio apartments, have attracted residents and brought the activity needed for any bustling city center. While it’s still a work in progress – one not aided by a pandemic that has exacerbated street retail vacancies in urban cores across the country – Main Street teems with bars, restaurants, coffee shops and other retail offerings, all within a short stroll. “I think it’s one of the crown jewels of urban redevelopment in the entire state,” says Kevin Dayton, government affairs director for the Salinas City Center Improvement Association (SCCIA), which formed to promote the area’s redevelopment. The group advocated for public measures like the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, passed by Salinas City Council in 2018. The ordinance removed zoning barriers prohibiting the residential conversion of older properties like 301 Main St. and the former Bruhn Building, located across the street at 300 Main St.

In addition to strong public-private partnerships, Dayton credits the investment made by companies like Taylor Farms, the Salinas-based vegetable processing giant that has snapped up downtown properties on the way to becoming one of the city’s most influential landlords – while “not expecting the kind of return on investment that a typical, out-of-town developer would. “We’ve been fortunate that we’ve gotten some property owners who really care about downtown Salinas and are willing to accept a lower investment return to make the city vibrant,” he notes. “Downtown redevelopment is a risk, and you can lose money on it.” 3/27/23, 9:53 AM How urban planning transformed downtown Salinas into Monterey County’s most walkable streetscape. | Cover Collections | mont… https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/cover_collections/how-urban-planning-transformed-downtown-salinas-into-monterey-county-s-most-wal… 3/4 Moving forward, stakeholders like the SCCIA hope to spur more redevelopment by converting downtown’s wealth of surface parking lots into new mixed-use projects. While some residents and business owners have complained that the reconfigured downtown has already made it harder to find convenient parking, a less car-friendly environment is very much by design. “You have to slow down traffic, you have to make it friendly to pedestrians and you have to make it interesting to be there,” says Greg Hamer, a local realtor who serves as district coordinator for the SCCIA. “The more welcoming it is, then the more businesses are going to gravitate to that, because it’s going to enable foot traffic.”
Streets & Roads
3/27/23, 9:53 AM How urban planning transformed downtown Salinas into Monterey County’s most walkable streetscape. | Cover Collections | mont… https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/cover_collections/how-urban-planning-transformed-downtown-salinas-into-monterey-county-s-most-wal… 4/4 Rey Mashayekhi

GOURMET DELIGHTS

ARE PREPARED VIA

HEARTH AT MALIGNE
Chef Klaus Georis opened Maligne last
June but started a conversation about running
the restaurant seven years ago with his father,
well-known local restaurateur Walter Georis.

The concept of cooking everything in a custom
hearth was generated by Klaus’ experience with
live-fire cooking in a tiny but celebrated restaurant in Belgium. “It was very raw, and there were so many
variables to figure out,” he says. “It was very
intense, but a great learning experience. I fell in
love with that style of cooking.”
In Belgium, Georis was up at 4AM each
morning foraging for local ingredients and was
given permission to experiment and make dishes up on the spot, a far cry from his much more formal training at Michelin-starred restaurants.
“That restaurant changed my outlook and
philosophy on cooking,” he says.

With Maligne, Georis has created a space he
describes as not pretentious, but where people
can enjoy themselves and listen to great music
while trying ultra-fresh food prepared on an
open fire.
“Having it smoked changes the flavor,” Georis
says. “We are happy and proud that every ingredient comes in daily.” Menu items include tuna au poivre, burgers from rare beef suppliers, oysters, and even Brussels style waffles and fruit cooked
in the hearth.
“There is a comforting element to it,” he says.

Maligne is located at 600 Broadway Avenue in
Seaside. For more information, visit www.exploretock.com/malignerestaurant or call 831/601-1302.

A NEW ALVARADO STREET

BREWERY LOCATION

OPENS IN SALINAS
According to Wendy Walker, director of
restaurants for Alvarado Street Brewery, the
company is excited to be opening a new restaurant in downtown Salinas, with an Art Deco style and “the elegant feel of the 1930s in the
center of beautiful Oldtown Salinas.”
A key aspect of each of the restaurants,
176 CARMEL MAGAZINE•WINTER 2022
Chef Klaus Georis cooks on a custom hearth in his restaurant, Maligne, which opened this June. He’s excited to bring his experience with live-fire cooking, which he learned in Belgium, to his new venture on Broadway in Seaside.

Photo: Kelli Uldall
food for thought
Wood-Fired Fare from Maligne; Alvarado Street Brewing
Opens a New Spot in Salinas; and Sea Harvest Celebrates Four Decades

BY BRETT WILBUR
CARMEL MAGAZINE•WINTER 2022 177
Alvarado Street Brewing has
opened their newest establishment on Main Street in Oldtown Salinas, transforming an Art Deco
bank into a jewel of a restaurant.

Photo: Brock Bill
which include a downtown Monterey location, one in Carmel Plaza and a tasting room in Salinas, is commonality.
“We try to bring the same culture and
mentality of community to each location,”
Walker says. The friendly atmosphere and the
core items on each menu along with staples
and rotating fresh and seasonal beers, wines
and cocktails ensures customer loyalty. Pizzas,
calamari, wings and the Alvarado burger are
some popular items, while each chef provides
unique menus that rotate seasonally depending on fresh local produce. “The beauty of our restaurant culture is
that our target market is everybody,” Walker
explains. “We are kid friendly and have kid food,
we also cater to the bar scene, and we provide
an elevated and upscale gastropub fare atmosphere for the older crowd. Our goal is to cater to everyone. If you try a couple of things, you
will find something you like.”
Walker also points out that the restaurant
is happy to be part of the revitalization of
downtown Salinas, the city where much of the
company’s beer is produced.
“We are excited to be part of the revamp
and to give back to the community that has
given to us for so long,” she says.

Alvarado Street Brewery & Grill is located at
426 Alvarado Street in Monterey. Alvarado Street
Brewery & Bistro is in the Carmel Plaza in Carmel.

Alvarado on Main is located at 301 Main Street
in Salinas. Alvarado Production Facility & Tasting
Room is located at 1315 Dayton Street in Salinas.

For more information, visit www.asb.beer.

SEA HARVEST
CELEBRATES 40 YEARS

OF FRESH SEAFOOD
David Deyerle and wife Tina run the
Carmel location of Sea Harvest, which has been
open for 38 years. Deyerle and brothers
Richard and Daniel started the business 40
years ago with a location in Monterey.
“We started fishing when we were very young,”
David explains. “We saw a niche that needed to
be filled in our community for fresh fish.”
The Carmel restaurant offers a sit-down
dining experience as well as product to go,
while Monterey and a location in Moss Landing
provide counter service.
“It’s the largest full-service fish market,” David
says. “Everything is sustainable and we source
product from all over the world as well as still
fishing and buying from local fisherman whatever is in season.” Seafood includes black cod, snapper, rock cod,
sea bass, sand dabs, snapper, swordfish, Maine
lobster, Alaskan salmon, and crab from Oregon.

Scallops come from the East Coast and prawns
are shipped from Mexico. Barbecue oysters and
oysters on the half shell are popular.
“We make jalapeno coleslaw, fresh homemade tartar and cocktail sauces, fresh clam chowder, our own crabcakes, and smoke our
own lox and kippered salmon,” David says.

The Deyerles hope to keep the business
running through the next generation.
“Richard’s kids are all fishing now,” David says.
“We hope to continue on in the family.”
Sea Harvest Fish Market & Restaurant is in
The Crossroads Carmel. For more information,
visit www.seaharvestfishmarketandrestaurant.com.

The Monterey restaurant is located at 598 Foam
Street and the Moss Landing restaurant is located
at 2420 Highway One.
178 CARMEL MAGAZINE•WINTER 2022
David Deyerle and his brothers David and Richard started their Monterey business 40 years ago. Locations now include restaurants and fish markets in The Crossroads Carmel, on Foam in Monterey and on Highway One in Moss Landing.

Photo: Kelli Uldall

PAJARO ST

CAYUGA ST

CAYUGA ST

S M IN ST
N
MAIN
ST

GABILAN ST

MARKET ST

SAN LUIS ST

CENTRAL AVE

CLAY ST

ALISAL ST

WINHAM ST

CHURCH ST

JOHN ST

HOWARD ST

AUBURN ST

PALMETTO ST

CAPITOL ST

MONTEREY ST

LINCOLN AVE

SALINAS ST

PAJARO ST

MAIN ST

STONE ST
M:\GIS_Projects\Public_Works\DonReynolds\MXD\CommunityBenefitDistLetterSize.mxd Downtown Salinas
Community Benefit District
July 2017 Zone 2 Additions
Benefit Zone 1
Benefit Zone 2
0 250 500 Feet
7/2017
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-317, Version: 1
Cityworks Software License Renewal
Approve a Resolution authorizing the purchase of a license renewal for Cityworks Software not to exceed $71,000.00.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/8/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 13, 2023
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION
FROM: JIM PIA, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
BY: ERIC SANDOVAL, GIS ADMINISTRATOR
TITLE: CITYWORKS SOFTWARE RENEWAL
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution to purchase the renewal of Cityworks Asset Management software license from Azteca Systems LLC., in an amount not to exceed $71,000.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Salinas maintains various assets on City owned properties, buildings, and facilities.

In 2022, the City Council approved the purchase of Cityworks Asset Management software to assist staff with tracking information and creating work orders to maintain City infrastructure, parts and equipment at City parks, buildings, and leased properties.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Salinas presently owns 283 parcels of land, upon which are located 179 buildings and an unknown number of other improvements, such as landscaping, pathways, recreational equipment, utility connections, artwork, and other features and characteristics. There are approximately 82 active leases and licenses which provide third parties the right to temporarily possess or use portions of these properties. In addition, the City leases or subleases several properties from outside entities for its own use.

Responsibility for different aspects of properties fall under the purview of different departments.

This results in an array of complexity with regards to property operation and maintenance. For example, vegetation management on City-owned properties is handled by at least six different City Divisions utilizing multiple contracts. Facilities maintenance is handled either through Library and Community Services or through Public Works. Utility bills are received and paid directly by Finance. Property Tax payments and lease monitoring are currently handled through Page | 2
Administration, while insurance is handled by the Legal Department. Many properties are maintained by Departments that exclusively use the facility (such as pump stations). Maintenance of properties that are leased are sometimes the responsibility of the Tenant, and sometimes not, depending on the terms of the lease. For many years staff has tried to manage the City’s properties and facilities without a centralized management system.

In 2022, the City Council approved the purchase of Cityworks Asset Management software to assist staff with tracking information and creating work orders to maintain City infrastructure, parts and equipment at City parks, buildings, leased properties. The management software also allows staff to generate improved reporting for short and long-term budget planning.

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:

In addition to the Community Development (Economic Development), Library and Community Services, and Public Works (Facilities) Departments, a high degree of cooperation and coordination between the Finance (Information Technology) and Public Works (GIS) Departments is needed. Consultation with other City Departments and Divisions that would be affected by the software may be required.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Funding for this purchase has been submitted to City Council as part of the FY 2023-24 Annual Budget. There is no recommended action for new appropriations.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Cityworks Quote
Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALINAS TO APPROVE THE

RENEWAL OF CITYWORKS SOFTWARE LICENSE
WHEREAS, the City desires to renew and maintain its Cityworks licensing; and WHEREAS, Azteca Systems LLC., will provide Cityworks software licensing for the City of Salinas
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Salinas Municipal Code section 12-27 the Salinas City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager and the Purchasing Agent to complete the purchase and renewal of Cityworks license from Azteca Systems LLC., in an amount not to exceed $71,000.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 13
th day of June, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
_______________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Quote Number Q-34835-2
Created Date 5/10/2023
Expiration Date 6/20/2023
Contact Information
Contact Name: Eric Sandoval Prepared By
Name:

Vasu Pillalamarri
Customer: Salinas (CA), City of Prepared By
Phone:
(801) 523-2751
Contact Address: 200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA
93901
Quote Lines
Product Name Quantity/
Population
Net Unit Price
AMS Workgroup Cityworks Online Standard Starter 5-Pack 1.00 USD 2,250.00 AMS Workgroup Cityworks Online Respond Logins 6+ 30.00 USD 9,000.00 Data Storage Plus 1.00 USD 1,875.00
Cityworks Online PLL Standard License 2.00 USD 900.00
TOTAL: USD 14,025.00
Notes
Year 1 Dollar Value USD 14,025.00 Year 1 Date Range 07/01/2023 - 09/30/2023* Year 2 Dollar Value USD 56,100.00 Year 2 Date Range 10/01/2023 - 09/30/2024 Notes:

Quote changes Renewal Date to 10/01/2023 - 09/30/2024.

Current Licensing:

Cityworks Online Workgroup Server AMS Standard 35 Named Logins for:

Office
Respond
Mobile Native Apps (for iOS/Android)
--Includes the following Add-ons:

Web Hooks
Data Storage Plus
Use of Cityworks AMS Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) with commercially available Cityworks-centric applications that are licensed and maintained by authorized Cityworks partners Cityworks Online Workgroup Server PLL Standard 2 Named Logins for Leasing Tracking only:

Office
Respond
Mobile Native Apps (for iOS/Android)
--Includes the following Add-ons:

Web Hooks
Use of Cityworks PLL Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) with commercially available Cityworks-centric applications that are licensed and maintained by authorized Cityworks partners Annual fee herein is based on 150,001 - 200,000 population range Cityworks Online (CWOL) – is a Cityworks Online hosted services subscription for the right to access and use the Online Services for the products identified hereinabove. CWOL is a highly scalable hosted services product offering. It is hosted on Azteca Systems’ servers and completely scaled, managed, updated, backed up, and maintained by Azteca Systems. Because Azteca Systems controls the update schedule, users are not responsible for upgrading, managing, or patching the system themselves. *Fee for Year 1 reflects a shortened period of 07/01/2023 - 09/30/2023 to cover renewal date change.

Terms and Conditions
Payment Terms
Payment due within 30 days

IF YOUR ORGANIZATION REQUIRES A PURCHASE ORDER, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO BEGIN THE APPROVAL PROCESS TO AVOID PAYMENT DELAYS.

All quotations are valid for ninety-days (90) from the date above, unless otherwise stated in this quotation form. All prices quoted are in USD, unless specifically provided otherwise, above. These prices and terms are valid only for items purchased for use and delivery for the Customers listed above.

Unless otherwise referenced, this quotation is for the Cityworks software products referenced above only. Pricing for implementation services (installation, configuration, training, etc.), or other software applications is provided separately and upon request.

The procurement, installation and administration of the Esri software or any other third-party software utilized in conjunction with Cityworks will be the responsibility of the Customer.

For “on-prem” installations, the procurement, installation and administration of the RDBMS utilized in conjunction with Cityworks will be the responsibility of the Customer. Currently, Cityworks supports Oracle and SQL Server. The procurement, installation and administration of the infrastructure
(hardware and networking) utilized in conjunction with Cityworks will be the responsibility of the Customer.

This quotation and the pricing information herein is confidential and proprietary and may not be copied or released other than for the express purpose of the current system Software and Product selection and purchase. This information may not be given to outside parties or used for any other purpose without written consent from Azteca Systems, LLC or unless otherwise specifically permitted by law. If a “public access” or similar request is made, Customer, shall notify Azteca Systems, prior to any disclosure.

Software Licensing
All Azteca Systems software offered in this quotation are commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software developed at private expense, and is subject to the terms and conditions of the signed “Cityworks Software License and Maintenance Agreement” ("Agreement") and any and all addendums or amendments thereto. A fully executed copy of the Agreement and any addendum(s) is required before delivery and installation and usage of the software is subject to the terms of the current license agreement.

The terms and conditions of the executed Cityworks Software License Agreement apply to this Quote unless otherwise specifically stated herein. Any additional or conflicting terms set forth in any purchase orders, invoices, or other standard form documents exchanged during the ordering process, other than product descriptions, quantities, pricing, and dates are void and of no effect.

Delivery method is by way of download through Azteca Systems, LLC. customer support web portal.

Taxes
Prices quoted do not include any applicable state, sales, local, or use taxes unless so stated. In preparing your budget and/or Purchase Order, please allow for any applicable taxes, including, sales, state, local or use taxes as necessary. Azteca Systems reserves the right to collect any applicable sales, use or other taxes tax assessed by or as required by law. Azteca Systems reserves the right to add any applicable tax to the invoice, unless proof with the order is shown that your organization or entity is tax exempt or if it pays any applicable tax directly.

International Customers
These items are controlled by the U.S. government and authorized for export only to the country of ultimate destination for use by the ultimate consignee or end-user(s) herein identified. They may not be resold, transferred, or otherwise disposed of, to any other country or to any person other than the authorized ultimate consignee or end-user(s), either in their original form or after being incorporated into other items, without first obtaining approval from the U.S. government or as otherwise authorized by U.S. law and regulations.

Your signature indicates your acceptance of this Quote, and that you have read and accepted the Terms and Conditions set forth above.

Accepted by:

Title
______/_____/_____
Date
Azteca Systems, LLC - Cityworks | 11075 South State Street Suite 24, Sandy, UT 84070 | Corporate Main 801-523-2751 | Corporate Fax 801-523-3734 City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-343, Version: 1
Agreement for Professional Services with Kosmont & Associates, Inc for Economic Consulting Services Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an Agreement for Professional Services (Agreement) between the City of Salinas and Kosmont & Associates Inc, (“Kosmont”) in the amount of $40,000 annually with a total not to exceed amount of $120,000.00 over a three-year period for general consulting services in economic development, real estate, and financial analysis.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/8/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 13, 2023
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: LISA BRINTON, DIRECTOR
BY: MICHAEL GOMEZ, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYST
TITLE: AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE

CITY OF SALINAS AND KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC FOR

ECONOMIC CONSULTING SERVICES
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an Agreement for Professional Services (Agreement) between the City of Salinas and Kosmont & Associates Inc, (“Kosmont”) for the amount of $40,000 annually with a total not to exceed amount of $120,000.00 over a three-year period for general consulting services in economic development, real estate, and financial analysis.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City has contracted with Kosmont to provide economic analysis services on a yearly basis on various economic development projects dating back to 2017. Staff wishes to continue consulting services with Kosmont that require feasibility studies and analysis for development amongst other real estate consulting services. The City has historically entered into yearly Agreements for Professional Services that have required renewals each year. Staff requests renewal for an extended term of three years at a yearly rate of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) to a not to exceed amount One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000) during the term of the Agreement. Staff recommends this Agreement to avoid the potential disruption of service that may occur during the renewal process. Under this Agreement Kosmont will continue to provide support to City staff on a yearly basis for up to three years, through June 30, 2026.

BACKGROUND:

Kosmont, is a qualified expert in the field of public finance and economic development, Kosmont is a certified Minority Business Enterprise (“MBE”) and Small Business Enterprise (“SBE”), with an award-winning track record of working with cities, counties, and other public agencies on economic development plans, infrastructure funding strategies, land use market analyses, business/industry attraction, and real estate projects and public finance transactions exceeding $12 billion. Kosmont is also on the Community Development’s on Call list for Current and Long-Term Planning Services to Page | 2
provide long-range planning in economic/financial analysis. The City has contracted with Kosmont for economic study and analysis since 2017. Examples of services provided include a study of local and regional market conditions, financial feasibility assessment of proposed developments, and analysis of public/private transactions. The current Agreement with Kosmont expires June 30, 2023.

DISCUSSION:

Staff has identified the need to continue contracting with Kosmont. Over the next three years, staff anticipates multiple large-scale projects that will require a consultant with the expertise the Kosmont holds such as a Parking Facility cost analysis, and an Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District (EIFD) formation support to finance infrastructure to support the development of the Salinas Ag Industrial Center, and other projects that come through the pipeline based on Council approved strategic plans.

The City will be billed on a time and materials basis for a total compensation amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) annually with a maximum compensation amount of One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000) over the three-year term of the Agreement (July, 1, 2023 to June 30, 2026).

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). Because the matter does not cause a direct or foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The proposed agreement furthers the City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025 goal of Economic Development by supporting the implementation of the Economic Development Element policies and action items such as facilitating development of the Salians Ag Industrial Center and the feasibility of a joint downtown parking facility with the County of Monterey.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Community Development staff coordinated with Legal Department to finalize the Agreement for Professional Services.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

This Agreement, for a total of three years at a yearly rate of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) to a not to exceed amount One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000). The first year, July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, is fully funded through the General Fund in the Economic Development Division’s FY 2023-2024 Budget for Professional Services (1000.30.1355-63.5900).

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution for Professional Services between the City of Salinas and Kosmont & Associates Inc.
a) Exhibit A: Agreement for Professional Service with Kosmont & Associates Inc. 1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALINAS AND KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES INC. FOR ECONOMIC CONSULTING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City has contracted with Kosmont for consultant services on various development projects since 2017 such as study of local and regional market conditions, review of the economics for proposed developments, and analysis of public/private transactions; and WHEREAS, the City of Salinas wishes to enter into an Agreement for Professional Services with Kosmont & Associates Inc. for a term of three years for consulting services in economic development, real estate, and financial analysis; and WHEREAS, Kosmont, is a qualified expert in the field of public finance and economic development, with an award-winning track record of working with cities, counties, and other public agencies on economic development plans, infrastructure funding strategies, land use market analyses, business/industry attraction, and real estate projects and public finance transactions; and WHEREAS, the City of Salinas determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby approves a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Salinas and Kosmont & Associates, Inc. for economic consulting services for a three-year term (July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2026) for an amount not to exceed Forty Thousand Dollars per year and a total compensation amount not to exceed One Hundred and Twenty Thousand dollars ($120,000).

PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of June, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
2 ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Professional Services Agreement v. April 2023
Kosmont & Associates Inc.

July 2023

AGREEMENT

FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SALINAS AND KOSMONT
& ASSOCIATES INC.

Contents
RECITALS ..................................................................................................................................... 4 TERMS ........................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Scope of Service. ................................................................................................................. 4

2. Term; Completion Schedule. ............................................................................................... 4

3. Compensation. ..................................................................................................................... 4

4. Billing. ................................................................................................................................. 4

5. Meet & Confer. .................................................................................................................... 5

6. Additional Copies................................................................................................................. 5

7. Responsibility of Consultant................................................................................................ 5

8. Responsibility of City. ......................................................................................................... 5

9. Acceptance of Work Not a Release. .................................................................................... 6

10. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. ................................................................................... 6

11. Insurance.............................................................................................................................. 6

12. Access to Records................................................................................................................ 6

13. Non-Assignability. ............................................................................................................... 6

14. Changes to Scope of Work. ................................................................................................. 6

15. Ownership of Documents. ................................................................................................... 7

16. Termination.......................................................................................................................... 7

17. Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations. ................................................................ 8

18. Exhibits Incorporated........................................................................................................... 8

19. Independent Contractor........................................................................................................ 8

20. Integration and Entire Agreement........................................................................................ 8

21. Jurisdiction and Venue......................................................................................................... 8

22. Severability .......................................................................................................................... 9

23. Notices. ................................................................................................................................ 9

24. Nondiscrimination................................................................................................................ 9

25. Conflict of Interest. ............................................................................................................ 10

26. Headings. ........................................................................................................................... 10

27. Attorneys’ Fees.................................................................................................................. 10

28. Non-Exclusive Agreement................................................................................................. 10

29. Rights and Obligations Under Agreement......................................................................... 10

30. Licenses.............................................................................................................................. 10

31. Counterparts....................................................................................................................... 10

32. Legal Representation. ........................................................................................................ 10

33. Joint Representation........................................................................................................... 11

34. Warranty of Authority........................................................................................................ 11

35. No Waiver of Rights. ......................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit A- Insurance Requirements.............................................................................................. 12 Exhibit B- Scope of Service.......................................................................................................... 15

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SALINAS AND KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES INC.

This Agreement for Professional Services (the “Agreement” and/or “Contract”) is made and entered into this 13th day of June, 2023, between the City of Salinas, a California Charter city and municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”), and Kosmont & Associates, Inc., a California corporation (hereinafter “Consultant”).

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Consultant represents that he, she, or it is specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Consultant is willing to render such professional services, as hereinafter defined, on the following terms and conditions.

NOW, THEREFORE, City and Consultant agree as follows:

TERMS

1. Scope of Service. The project contemplated and the scope of Consultant’s services are described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

2. Term; Completion Schedule. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2023, and shall terminate on June 30, 2026, unless extended in writing by either party upon (30) days written notice. This Agreement may be extended only upon mutual written consent of the parties and may be terminated only pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

3. Compensation. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant for services rendered the City pursuant to this Agreement on a time and materials basis according to the rates of compensation as set forth in Exhibit B. Beginning one year from the effective date of this agreement, and on each subsequent anniversary of this agreement, the hourly rate may be increased. Consultant will provide the City with an updated fee schedule reflecting the new hourly rate at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the new hourly rate. The max amount of compensation to be paid per fiscal year is forty thousand dollars ($40,000) and shall not exceed one hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) during the term of this Agreement.

4. Billing. Consultant shall submit to City an itemized invoice, prepared in a form satisfactory to City, describing its services and costs for the period covered by the invoice.

Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant’s bills shall include the following information to which such services cost or pertain:
(A) A brief description of services performed;
(B) The date the services were performed;

(C) The number of hours spent and by whom;
(D) A brief description of any costs incurred; and
(E) The Consultant’s signature.

Any such invoices shall be in full accord with any and all applicable provisions of this Agreement.

City shall make payment on each such invoice within thirty (30) days of receipt; provided, however, that if Consultant submits an invoice which is incorrect, incomplete, or not in accord with the provisions of this Agreement, City shall not be obligated to process any payment to Consultant until thirty (30) days after a correct and complying invoice has been submitted by Consultant. The City shall process undisputed portion immediately.

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

6. Additional Copies. If City requires additional copies of reports, or any other material which Consultant is required to furnish as part of the services under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate Consultant for the actual costs related to the production of such copies by Consultant.

7. Responsibility of Consultant. By executing this Agreement, Consultant agrees that the services to be provided and work to be performed under this Agreement shall be performed in a fully competent manner. By executing this Agreement, Consultant further agrees and represents to City that the Consultant possesses, or shall arrange to secure from others, all of the necessary professional capabilities, experience, resources, and facilities necessary to provide the City the services contemplated under this Agreement and that City relies upon the professional skills of Consultant to do and perform Consultant’s work. Consultant further agrees and represents that Consultant shall follow the current, generally accepted practices in this area to the profession to make findings, render opinions, prepare factual presentations, and provide professional advice and recommendations regarding the projects for which the services are rendered under this Agreement.

8. Responsibility of City. To the extent appropriate to the projects to be completed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, City shall:
(A) Assist Consultant by placing at its disposal all available information pertinent to the projects, including but not limited to, previous reports and any other data relative to the projects. Nothing contained herein shall obligate City to incur any expense in connection with completion of studies or acquisition of information not otherwise in the possession of City. (B) Examine all studies, reports, sketches, drawings, specifications, proposals, and other documents presented by Consultant, and render verbally or in writing as may be

appropriate, decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not to delay the services of Consultant.
(C) Steve Carrigan, City Manager, or his designee, shall act as City’s representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. Such person shall have the complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define City’s policies and decisions with respect to materials, equipment, elements, and systems pertinent to Consultant’s services. City may unilaterally change its representative upon notice to the Consultant.
(D) Give prompt written notice to Consultant whenever City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in a project.

9. Acceptance of Work Not a Release. Acceptance by the City of the work to be performed under this Agreement does not operate as a release of Consultant from professional responsibility for the work performed.

10. Indemnification and Hold Harmless.

Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, employees, volunteers, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expense, costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Consultant’s performance of work hereunder, including the performance of work of any of Consultant’s subcontractors or agents, or Consultant’s failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in the agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

11. Insurance. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance meeting the requirements specified in Exhibit A hereto.

12. Access to Records. Consultant shall maintain all preparatory books, records, documents, accounting ledgers, and similar materials including but not limited to calculation and survey notes relating to work performed for the City under this Agreement on file for at least three (3) years following the date of final payment to Consultant by City. Any duly authorized representative(s) of City shall have access to such records for the purpose of inspection, audit, and copying at reasonable times during Consultant’s usual and customary business hours.

Consultant shall provide proper facilities to City’s representative(s) for such access and inspection.

13. Non-Assignability. It is recognized by the parties hereto that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was, and is, the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. This Agreement is personal to Consultant and shall not be assigned by it without express written approval of the City.

14. Changes to Scope of Work. City may at any time, and upon a minimum of ten (10) days written notice, seek to modify the scope of services to be provided for any project to be

completed under this Agreement. Consultant shall, upon receipt of said notice, determine the impact on both time and compensation of such change in scope and notify City in writing. Upon agreement between City and Consultant as to the extent of said impacts to time and compensation, an amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared describing such changes.

Execution of the amendment by City and Consultant shall constitute the Consultant’s notice to proceed with the changed scope.

15. Ownership of Documents. Title to all final documents, including drawings, specifications, data, reports, summaries, correspondence, photographs, computer software (if purchased on the City’s behalf), video and audio tapes, software output, and any other materials with respect to work performed under this Agreement shall vest with City at such time as City has compensated Consultant, as provided herein, for the services rendered by Consultant in connection with which they were prepared. City agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant against all damages, claims, lawsuits, and losses of any kind including defense costs arising out of any use of said documents, drawings, and/or specifications on any other project without written authorization of the Consultant.

16. Termination.
(A) City shall have the authority to terminate this Agreement, upon ten days written notice to Consultant, as follows:
(1) If in the City’s opinion the conduct of the Consultant is such that the interest of the City may be impaired or prejudiced, or
(2) For any reason whatsoever.
(B) Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to payment of such amount as fairly compensates Consultant for all work satisfactorily performed up to the date of termination based upon the Consultant’s rates shown in Exhibit B and/or Section 3 of this Agreement, except that:
(1) In the event of termination by the City for Consultant’s default, City shall deduct from the amount due Consultant the total amount of additional expenses incurred by City as a result of such default. Such deduction from amounts due Consultant are made to compensate City for its actual additional costs incurred in securing satisfactory performance of the terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to, costs of engaging another consultant(s) for such purposes. In the event that such additional expenses shall exceed amounts otherwise due and payable to Consultant hereunder, Consultant shall pay City the full amount of such expense. (C) In the event that this Agreement is terminated by City for any reason, Consultant shall:

(1) Upon receipt of written notice of such termination promptly cease all services on this project, unless otherwise directed by City; and (2) Deliver to City all documents, data, reports, summaries, correspondence, photographs, computer software output, video and audio tapes, and any other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement. Such material is to be delivered to City in completed form; however, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15 herein, City may condition payment for services rendered to the date of termination upon Consultant’s delivery to the City of such material.
(D) In the event that this Agreement is terminated by City for any reason, City is hereby expressly permitted to assume the projects and complete them by any means, including but not limited to, an agreement with another party.
(E) The rights and remedy of the City and Consultant provided under this Section are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or appearing in any other section of this Agreement.

17. Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations. Services performed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in accordance and full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and City laws and any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder.

18. Exhibits Incorporated. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and attached to it are hereby incorporated in it by this reference. In the event there is a conflict between any of the terms of this Agreement and any of the terms of any exhibit to the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement shall control the respective duties and liabilities of the parties.

19. Independent Contractor. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that Consultant, while engaged in carrying out and complying with any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. Consultant expressly warrants not to represent, at any time or in any manner, that Consultant is an employee or servant of the City.

20. Integration and Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters contained herein. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except by amendment in writing signed by both parties.

21. Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, County of Monterey, and City of Salinas.

Jurisdiction of litigation arising from this Agreement shall be in the State of California, in the County of Monterey or in the appropriate federal court with jurisdiction over the matter.

22. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null and void insofar as it is in conflict with said laws, but the remainder of the Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect.

23. Notices.
(A) Written notices to the City hereunder shall, until further notice by City, be addressed to:

City Manager
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901
With a copy to:

City Attorney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901
(B) Written notices to the Consultant shall, until further notice by the Consultant, be addressed to:

Ken Hira
Kosmont & Associates
1601 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 382
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
(C) The execution of any such notices by the City Manager shall be effective as to Consultant as if it were by resolution or order of the City Council, and Consultant shall not question the authority of the City Manager to execute any such notice. (D) All such notices shall either be delivered personally to the other party’s designee named above, or shall be deposited in the United States Mail, properly addressed as aforesaid, postage fully prepaid, and shall be effective the day following such deposit in the mail.

24. Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, ancestry, creed, sex, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, age (over 40 years) or disability. Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, ancestry, creed, sex, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, age (over 40 years) or disability.

25. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and declares that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, in any manner or degree which will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable local, state or federal law. Consultant further declares that, in the performance of this Agreement, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code section 81000 et seq.) and Salinas City Code Chapter 2A that apply to Consultant as the result of Consultant’s performance of the work or services pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

26. Headings. The section headings appearing herein shall not be deemed to govern, limit, modify, or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of this Agreement.

27. Attorneys’ Fees. In case suit shall be brought to interpret or to enforce this Agreement, or because of the breach of any other covenant or provision herein contained, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to such costs as may be allowed by the Court. City’s attorneys’ fees, if awarded, shall be calculated at the market rate.

28. Non-Exclusive Agreement. This Agreement is non-exclusive and both City and Consultant expressly reserves the right to contract with other entities for the same or similar services.

29. Rights and Obligations Under Agreement. By entering into this Agreement, the parties do not intend to create any obligations express or implied other than those set out herein; further, this Agreement shall not create any rights in any party not a signatory hereto.

30. Licenses. If a license of any kind, which term is intended to include evidence of registration, is required of Consultant, its representatives, agents or subcontractors by federal, state or local law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and that any applicable bond posted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

31. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute a single agreement.

32. Legal Representation. Each party affirms that it has been represented, if it so chose, by legal counsel of its own choosing regarding the preparation and the negotiation of this Agreement and the matters and claims set forth herein, and that each of them has read this Agreement and is fully aware of its contents and its legal effect. Neither party is relying on any statement of the other party outside the terms set forth in this Agreement as an inducement to enter into this Agreement.

33. Joint Representation. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any party. No presumptions or rules of interpretation based upon the identity of the party preparing or drafting the Agreement, or any part thereof, shall be applicable or invoked.

34. Warranty of Authority. Each party represents and warrants that it has the right, power, and authority to enter into this Agreement. Each party further represents and warrants that it has given any and all notices, and obtained any and all consents, powers, and authorities, necessary to permit it, and the persons entering into this Agreement for it, to enter into this Agreement.

35. No Waiver of Rights. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. The failure to provide notice of any breach of this Agreement or failure to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver thereof.

Failure on the part of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of the right to compel enforcement of such provision or any other provision. A waiver by the City of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance under this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement on the date first written above.

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

CONSULTANT
___________________________________
Ken Hira
President

Exhibit A- Insurance Requirements
Insurance Requirements
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors. With respect to General Liability and Professional Liability, coverage should be maintained for a minimum of five (5) years after Agreement completion.

MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(A)Commercial General Liability (“CGL”): Insurance Services Office Form (“ISO”) CG 00 01 covering CGL on an occurrence basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (B) Automobile Liability: ISO Form CA 0001 covering any auto, or if Consultant has no owned autos, hired and non-owned, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
(C)Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
(D)Professional Liability (also known as Errors and Omissions) insurance appropriate to the work being performed, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate per policy period of one year.

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

OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Additional Insured Status
The City of Salinas, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, CG 11 85, or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

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

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.

Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City of Salinas for all work performed by the Consultant, its employees, agents, and subcontractors.

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

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

Claims Made Policies
If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:

1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of this Agreement or the beginning of Agreement work.

2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the Agreement of work.

3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the Agreement effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of Agreement work.

4. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review.

Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable insurance language effecting coverage required by this Agreement. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

Subcontractors
Consultant shall require and verify that all sub-consultants and/or subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Consultant shall ensure that Entity is an additional insured on insurance required from such sub-consultants and/or subcontractors.

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

Maintenance of Insurance
Maintenance of insurance by Consultant as specified shall in no way be interpreted as relieving Consultant of its indemnification obligations or any responsibility whatsoever and the Consultant may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it deems necessary.

Exhibit B- Scope of Service
and 2023 Fee Schedule
Economic Development Consulting Services
o Economic Development Strategies
o Downtown Revitalization
o Asset Management Plans
o Developer Selection RFQ/RFP & DDA/ENA
o Sustainable Economic Development
Land Use/Zoning and Community Planning
Services
o Development Opportunity Reserve
o Sales Tax Assessment Revenue
o Other Zoning & Implementation Strategies
for Economic Development
Planning and Development Services
o Project Evaluation
o Project Financial & Pro-Forma Assessment
o Land Use/Entitlements
o Due Diligence Reports
Real Estate Economics & Financial Advisory
Services
o Fiscal & Economic Impacts
o Project Economics, Highest and Best Use &
Market Studies
o Public & Private Financing Structures
o Affordable Housing (Pro Forma, Housing
Element, Negotiations, Feasibility)
Kosmont Companies
2023 Public Agency Fee Schedule
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-347, Version: 1
City Yard Security Gate Upgrade
Approve a Resolution authorizing an agreement with American Door & Gates to upgrade the City Yard Security Gate System at 426 Work Street for a cost not to exceed $63,500.00.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/8/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 13, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, DIRECTOR
BY: SEAN SCHMIDT, FACILITIES MAINT. CREW SUP/MANAGER
TITLE: CITY YARD SECURITY GATE UPGRADE
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve entering into an agreement with American Door & Gates to upgrade the City Yard Security Gate System at 426 Work Street for a cost not to exceed $65,000 with a 15% contingency.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Staff is requesting approval from the City Council to enter into an agreement to upgrade the City Yard Security Gate System. Approval would benefit the city by creating additional barriers for individuals trying to break into the City Yard storage areas and vehicles. This additional security will save the city money long-term by not having to replace stolen or damaged items.

BACKGROUND:

The City continue to have problems with break-ins at the City Yard located at 426 Work Street.

Over the past year, the Facilities Maintenance Division has reached out to vendors requesting a quote to upgrade the security gates. Only one vendor responded back with a quote.

During the lag time of response from vendors, staff was able to receive and approve Bandit Security System to help prevent break ins that have been occurring more frequently at the City Yard. Since installation in March of 2023, Bandit Security System has caught 6 individuals trespassing and looking into vehicles and storage areas.

Due to the continued unauthorized individuals at the City Yard, we are requesting approval for an upgrade to our current City Yard Security gate system from American Door & Gates (the one vendor who responded to the request for a quote). Our current security gate system consists of 2 vehicle entry/exit gates, one manual open and one automatic slide, and one walk-through gate.

Upgrade being requested will make both vehicle gates automatic open and close using both a remote system and keypad entry. Additional upgrade will add a photo eye to gates for extra security including walk-through gate. Upgraded system that includes removal and haul away of old security Page | 2
gates and installation of new security gates will cost $65,000. We are requesting a 15% contingency to cover any increase that might occur between council approval and completed installation.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The proposed agreement will advance the City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025 Goals and Strategies of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Facilities Maintenance department has discussed and agreed with Maintenance Admin, Urban Forestry, Industrial Waste and Streets departments located at the City yard to approve and bring to council the planned upgrade at the City Yard. Planned upgrade will help alleviate unnecessary expenses to replace items that were stolen at the City yard.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The fiscal responsibility for the upgrade at the City yard is currently budgeted through the Public Works Facilities Maintenance Division’s operational budget (1000.50.5232). Based on the current budget, sufficient funds are available to cover the cost of the Security Gate upgrade agreement if approved. No additional appropriation is needed.

ATTACHMENTS:

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

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE UPGRADE OF SALINAS CITY YARD

SECURITY GATE SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City Yard at 426 Work Street is in need of security gate system upgrades WHEREAS, Funds are available in the Public Works Facilities Maintenance operational budget; and
WHEREAS, Facilities Maintenance requested quotes from several vendors to upgrade the yard security gates; and
WHEREAS, American Door & Gates was the only vendor to respond with a quote, and WHEREAS, City Yard departments have met and agreed on American Door & Gates as a vendor to upgrade the yard security gates; and
WHEREAS, Replacing and upgrading the security gates advances the City of Salinas Strategic Plan of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability; and WHEREAS, City Council has authority to approve the security gate upgrade by entering into an agreement with American Door & Gates.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves the agreement with American Door & Gates for an amount not to exceed $65,000 with a 15% contingency.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of June 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
_______________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
Page | 2
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 1 of 10
American Door & Gates
May 2023

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SALINAS AND AMERICAN DOOR & GATES
City Yard Security Gate Upgrade
THIS AGREEMENT is executed this 13th day of June 2023, (“Agreement” or “Contract”) between the City of Salinas, a California Charter city and municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”) and American Door & Gates, an Individual/Sole Proprietor or SingleMember LLC (Hereinafter “Contractor”).

IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Scope. Contractor hereby agrees to provide to the City, as the scope of services under this Agreement, the following services: Removal and hauling of old gates and installation of new gates. Scope of work is further discussed in Contractor’s Proposal and Contractor’s fee schedule dated 5/15/2023 Attachment B.

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

3. Term. The work under this Agreement shall commence upon approval and shall be completed by December 2023 unless City grants a written extension of time as set forth in Section 2 above.

4. Payment. City agrees to pay, and Contractor agrees to accept as full and fair consideration for the performance of this Agreement, not to exceed Sixty-Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000), as more fully described in title of Contractors fee schedule, Attachment B. Contractor has no right of reimbursement for expenses under this Agreement. Compensation shall become due and payable 30 days after City’s approval of Contractor’s submission of monthly written invoices to the City. The payment of any compensation shall be contingent upon performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the City. If City determines that the work set forth in the written invoice has not been performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, City shall not be responsible for payment until such time as the work has been satisfactorily performed.

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

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

7. Indemnification. Contractor shall hold harmless, defend at its own expense, and indemnify City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against all Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 2 of 10
American Door & Gates
May 2023
liability, claims, damages, losses, and/or expenses including reasonable City attorney fees arising from all acts or omissions of Contractor or its officers, agents, or employees arising out of the performance of the work under this Contract, caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Contractor, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, except where caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 3 of 10
American Door & Gates
May 2023

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

CONTRACTOR
___________________________________
By (Printed Name):___________________
Its (Title):___________________________
Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 4 of 10
American Door & Gates
May 2023
Attachment A
Insurance Requirements
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, and for three years thereafter, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, his/her/its officers, agents, representatives, employees, and/or subcontractors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations and automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 5 of 10
American Door & Gates
May 2023
or on behalf of the Contractor. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, CG 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maintenance of Insurance
Maintenance of insurance by Contractor as specified shall in no way be interpreted as relieving Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 6 of 10
American Door & Gates
May 2023
Contractor of its indemnification obligations or any responsibility whatsoever and the Contractor may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it deems necessary.

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

Surety Bonds
Contractor shall provide the following Surety Bonds:

1. Payment bond

2. Performance bond

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

Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page
7 of 10
American Door & Gates
May 2023
Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 8 of 10
American Door & Gates
May 2023
Attachment B
Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 9 of 10
American Door & Gates
May 2023
Attachment C
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS’ STATE LABOR CODE
Labor Law Requirements
(CCR Title 8, Section 16421)
This public works project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). All work shall be in accordance with wage scales and applicable determinations made by the Director of the DIR, as provided by Article 2, Chapter 1, Division 2, Part 7 of the Labor Code of the State of California, commencing with §1771.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Certified Payroll Records: All contractors, including subcontractors, must maintain and file certified payroll records (“CPRs”) pursuant to Labor Code §1776. Additionally, all contractors and subcontractors must furnish certified payroll records into the DIR’s Electronic Certified Payroll Reporting (“eCPRs”) database Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 10 of 10
American Door & Gates
May 2023
(https://efiling.dir.ca.gov/eCPR/pages/eCPROnlineForm.jsp). Penalties apply to Contractor and any Subcontractors for failure to do so under Labor Code §1777.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-350, Version: 1
Award of Contract for the Cesar Chavez Park DG Path
Approve a Resolution awarding a contract for the Cesar Chavez Park DG Path improvements to NR Development, Inc for the sum of $602,500.00; authorizing the establishment of Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 9361, “Cesar Chavez Trail,” with appropriation(s) totaling $559,000; approving the transfer of $559,000 from AVP CIP 9246 to CIP 9361.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/8/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 13, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS (PW)

LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (LCS)
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PW DIRECTOR

KRISTAN LUNDQUIST, LCS DIRECTOR
TITLE: AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE CESAR CHAVEZ PARK DG
PATH
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to
1) Approve establishment of Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 9361, “Cesar Chavez Trail,” with appropriation(s) totaling $559,000;
2) Approve the transfer of $559,000 from AVP CIP 9246 to CIP 9361; and 3) Approve a resolution awarding a contract for the Cesar Chavez Park DG Path improvements to NR Development, Inc for the sum of $602,500.00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On March 24, 2023, a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the Cesar Chavez Park DG Path Improvements was published via PlanetBids, an online bidding tool. On April 3, 2023, a nonmandatory Bid walk for the project was conducted. On April 27th one (1) contractor submitted a proposal for evaluation. An evaluation committee was formed to review the proposal for the improvement project. The selection Committee has reviewed the proposal from NR Development, Inc. and found that it met all the requirements and is a responsive proposer of the RFP. The Committee met with NR Development to discuss a better price for the work. NR Development reviewed its bid and lowered is proposal from $618,500 to $602,500.

BACKGROUND:

In 2019 the Library Community Services Department concluded a Parks, Recreation and Libraries Master Planning (PRLMP) effort which included a full assessment of our park, recreation, and library facilities. Following this assessment and the community engagement process which included over two thousand community engagement touch points, our consultants proceeded to Page | 2
develop plan content, key project recommendations, implementation strategies and a capital investment plan. Based on this extensive community engagement all our assets requiring capital improvements were ranked. Cesar Chavez is a top ranked park with a high overall priority score.

The priority score includes community need, significance, funding leverage, safety/security, usage/benefits, and location/demographics.

This non-competitive grant made possible by the passage of the Proposition 68 - Per Capita Program has awarded the City of Salinas $177,952. The intent of the Prop 68 funded Per Capita Program is to create opportunities for high quality outdoor recreation and connect residents to parks in critically underserved communities across California. The Cesar Chavez Trail Park project consists of renovating the existing decomposed granite trail and adding to the trail to connect to Circle Drive. Bench and exercise pads will also be installed along the trail. The Trail is designed to provide a loop for walking or running in addition to a possible future connection with a proposed regional trail outside the park. Also provided along the trail will be Mile Marker posts that will inform the length in segments so that those exercising can be aware of the how far they go and based on their time, can calculate how fast or slow they went for a given segment.

The project also leverages Alisal Vibrancy Plan (AVP) implementation funds designated for park and open space improvements. AVP funds would be used to augment the project to include construction of the trial, with trash and recycling receptacles, and exercise stations. Adding more trash and recycling receptacles for cleanliness, and the addition of exercise stations to promote healthy activity were identified as priorities in the resident led AVP and implementation plan. This collaboration allows the City to maximize both the use of the per capita grant funds and the AVP implementation funds to increase community benefit and achieve the priorities of both the PRLMP and the AVP.

Cesar Chavez Park is a top priority because of its critical condition and heavy use by the community. The park hosts hundreds of people daily on the basketball courts, playground, and jogging or walking around the park. This grant application is part of our goal to finding a solution to develop this important park central to a thriving and densely populated community.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Categorically exempt. The City of Salinas has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 1530l(c), Class 1), because the project proposes to maintain an existing pedestrian trail.

Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exemptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300.2, because section does not apply, and we are not reconstructing or replacing any structures or facilities.

Page | 3
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This item relates to the City Council’s Strategic Plan of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability as well as Youth and Seniors.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Public Works Department, Library & Community Services and Community Development Departments worked together to develop the RFQ, rate and rank the statement of qualifications.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

This project will be funded by Proposition 68 Per Capita grant funds (CIP 9361) and Alisal Vibrancy Plan Implementation Funds (CIP 9246).

To award the base bid, staff is requesting transferring $559,000 from AVP CIP 9246 to CIP 9361.

The City was awarded $177,952 in Proposition 68 per capita funds for the project.

ANTICIPATED PROJECT COSTS
Expenditure Description Anticipated Expenditure
Base Bids $602,500.00
Contingency (10%) $60,250.00
Direct Project Cost Subtotal $662,750.00
Inspection (2%) $12,100.00
Administrative Overhead $50,000.00
City Staff Project Management and Admin. (2%) $12,100.00 Soft Project Cost Subtotal $74,200.00
Project Direct Costs $662,750.00
Project Soft Costs $74,200.00
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $736,950.00
ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Draft Agreement for Services
NR Development, Inc proposal
NR Development, Inc. updated price
Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL AWARDING THE CESAR

CHAVEZ PARK DG TRAIL PROJECT TO CONTRACT TO NR DEVELOPMENT, INC.

WHEREAS, on March 24, 2023, a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the Cesar Chavez Park DG Path Trail Project; and
WHEREAS, one proposal was received through PlanetBids until 2:00pm on April 27, 2023; and
WHEREAS, an evaluation committee, comprised of four, cross-departmental City staff members, conducted a thorough evaluation of the proposal; and WHEREAS, determined that the proposal from NR Development, Inc. met all the requirements of the RFP; and
WHEREAS, to award the Base Bid, staff is requesting a transfer of $559,000.00 from CIP 9246 to CIP 9361; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby approves the establishment of Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 9361, “Cesar Chavez Trail,” with appropriation(s) totaling $559,000; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby approves a transfer of $559,000.00 from CIP 9246 – Alisal Vibrancy Plan Implementation Fund to CIP 9361 – Proposition 68 Per Capita grant funds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves the Agreement for Services between the City of Salinas and NR Development, Inc and authorizes the City Manager or designee to enter into such agreement in the sum of $602,500.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of June 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Page | 2
APPROVED:
_______________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

AGREEMENT
(To be completed and submitted for project award)
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 20 , by and between CITY OF SALINAS, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter called "City", and NR Development, Inc., hereinafter called "Contractor",

W I T N E S S E T H
FIRST: Contractor hereby covenants and agrees to furnish and provide all labor, materials, tools, appliances, equipment, plant and transportation, and all other things required or necessary to be furnished, provide or done, and build, erect, construct and complete the work at the time and in the manner provided, and in strict accordance with, the Request for Proposal, for SECOND: CESAR CHAVEZ PARK DG PATH
PROJECT NO. 9361
adopted by the Council of the City of Salinas on June 13, 2023 and identified by the signature of Contractor and the signature of the Mayor of the City of Salinas.

THIRD: It is expressly understood and agreed that this Contract consists of the following documents, all of which are incorporated into this agreement and made a part hereof as fully and completely as if set forth herein verbatim, to wit:
a. Request for Proposals;
b. Signed and executed Bid and Proposal of Contractor, and if any signed Addendum, as accepted by City;
c. Bidder’s Statement of Financial Responsibility, Technical Ability and Experience; d. Bidder’s Statement of Subcontractors – Part I;
e. Bidder’s Statement of Subcontractors – Part II;
f. Insurance Certification;
g. Completely executed and signed all required City of Salinas forms; h. Instructions to Successful Bidder and General conditions; i. Bond of Faithful Performance;
j. Payment Bond (Labor and Materials Bond);
k. Certificate of Insurance;
l. The aforesaid Plans and Specifications;
m. Current California Building Standard Code;
n. Design Standards and Standard Specifications and Standard Plans, 2008 Edition, or as amended, or otherwise indicated in the specifications; and o. This Agreement.

FOURTH: That said Contractor agrees to receive and accept the following prices as full compensation for furnishing all materials and for doing all the work embraced and contemplated in this Agreement and as set forth in the Proposal adopted by the City of Salinas, a true copy thereof hereto attached; also, for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of said work or from the action of the elements or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the work until the acceptance thereof by the City of Salinas and for all risk connected with the work, and for well and faithfully completing the work, and the whole thereof, in the manner and according to the said Plans and Specifications and the provisions of this agreement, and the requirements of the City Engineer under them, to wit: The prices as set forth in the Proposal of said Contractor for the work to be constructed and completed under this Agreement, which prices shall be considered as though repeated herein.

The Contractor and City hereby agree that the Contractor shall perform the work, and be paid the amount of bid items No.1 through 8 specified in the Proposal of the Contractor, for the as total price of six hundred two thousand five hundred dollars ($602,500).

The undersigned Contractor further agrees to so plan the work and to prosecute it with such diligence that said work, and all of it, shall be completed on or before the expiration of the time specified in the Proposal after execution of the Contract on behalf of the City of Salinas and the receipt from the City of Salinas of a notice to proceed with the work.

FIFTH: The City of Salinas hereby promise and agrees with said Contractor to employ, and does hereby employ, said Contractor to provide the materials and to do the work according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to, for the price aforesaid, and hereby Contracts to pay the same at the time, in the manner and upon the conditions set forth in the Specifications and the said parties, for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained.

SIXTH: No interest in this agreement shall be transferred by the Contractor to any other party, and any such transfer shall cause the annulment of this Contract, so far as the City of Salinas is concerned. All rights of action, however, for any breach of this Contract are reserved to City.

SEVENTH: The Contractor shall keep harmless and indemnify the City of Salinas, its officers and employees and agents, from all loss, damage, cost or expense that arises or is set up for infringement of patent rights of anyone for use by the City of Salinas, its officers, employees or agents, or articles supplied by the Contractor under this Contract of which he/she is not entitled to use or sell. Contractor agrees to, at his/her own cost and expense, defend in court the City, its officers, agents and employees, in any action which may be commenced or maintained against them or any of the, on account of any claimed infringement of patent rights, arising out of this agreement.

Contractor shall indemnify and save the City of Salinas and its officers, agents, and employees harmless against all claims for damages to person or property arising out of Contractor's execution of the work, or otherwise by the conduct of the Contractor or its employees, agents, Subcontractors, or others (including the active and passive negligence of the City, its officers, agents, and employees) in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Contract and any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, and employees) in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Contract and any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not, except only those claims arising from the sole negligence or willful conduct of the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Further, Contractor at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees.

Contractor shall reimburse the City of Salinas for all costs and expense (including but not limited to fees and charge of architects, engineers, attorneys, and other professional and court costs) incurred by the City in enforcing the provisions of this Section.

EIGHTH: The Contractor agrees to immediately repair and replace all defective material and workmanship discovered within 1 year after acceptance of final payment by Contractor and to indemnify said City of Salinas against all loss and damage occasioned by any such defect, discovered within said 1 year, even though the damage or loss may not be ascertained until after the expiration thereof. Provided, however, that if such failure of the Contractor to perform should not, by reasonable diligence, be discoverable or discovered within said 1 year, then the obligation of the Contractor to repair and replace said defective material or workmanship shall continue until one year after the actual discovery thereof.

NINTH: The Contractor agrees at all times during the progress of the work to carry with insurance carriers approved by the City of Salinas full coverage workmen's compensation and public liability insurance in the form and to the extent called for in Section 7-1.12 of both the Standard Specifications, State of California, May 2006, and the Design Standards and Standard Specifications, Public Works Department, City of Salinas, 2008 Edition. Certificates of Insurance must specify whether coverage is on a "claims occurrence" or "claims made" form. If the policy is "claims made", Contractor will be required to obtain a bond which must remain in effect until 12 months following work completions.

Contractor shall also advise the insurance carrier to inform the city of the unpaid limits of the policy. Such insurance policy shall contain an endorsement that the same shall not be canceled nor the amount of coverage be reduced until at least 30 days after receipt by the City of Salinas by certified or registered mail of a written notice of such cancellation or reduction in coverage.

It is acknowledged by the parties to this agreement that insurance coverage required to be provided by the Contractor or any other party in favor of the City/additional insured is intended to apply first on a primary and non-contributing basis in relation to any other insurance of self-insurance (primary or excess) available to the City and any employee of the City. The Contractor agrees to have its policies endorsed accordingly.

In addition, Contractor also accepts to provide commercial general liability (CGL) endorsement form CG 20 10 11 85. An acceptable alternative would be the use of two ISO forms together: the CG 20 10 07 04 (“ongoing operations”) and the CG 20 37 10 01 (“completed operations”). The City may also accept any other comparable endorsement, which does not further limit coverage and which may be approved and accepted by the City’s Risk Management staff.

TENTH: Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and municipal laws and regulations, including but not limited to California Labor Code Division 2, Part 7, and Chapter 1.

Apprenticeship utilization: The contractor agrees to comply with the Department of Apprenticeship Standards of the California Labor Code Section 1777.5, and the following:

Prior to commencing work on the awarded contract, the Contractor shall submit contract award information (form DAS 140) to all applicable apprenticeship program(s) that can supply apprentices to the site of the public work. A copy of this information shall also be provided to the City of Salinas.

The ratio of work performed by apprentices to journeyman employed in a particular craft or trade on the public work shall be no less than one hour of apprentice work for every five hours of journeyman work.

At the end of each month of work on the contract, the Contractor and Subcontractors shall submit a record of utilization of apprentices for the previous months work.

Within 75 days after concluding work on the contract, each contractor and subcontractor shall submit to the City of Salinas and to the apprenticeship program a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed on the contract.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has caused this instrument to be executed and its corporate name and seal to be hereunto attached by its Mayor, pursuant to resolution theretofore duly adopted by the Council of the City of Salinas, and Contractor has caused this instrument to be executed, the day and year first hereinabove written.

CITY OF SALINAS, A Municipal Corporation
ATTEST: BY
Mayor
City Clerk
(Attach Notary Acknowledgment) Contractor (signature in blue ink) NOTE: Please refer to the “General Instructions to Selected Bidder” for specific signature requirements.

I hereby approved the form of the foregoing Contract this day of , 20 .

Attorney for the City of Salinas
Checked by the City Engineer on
City Engineer
ALL SIGNATURES SHALL BE NOTARIZED EXCEPT THOSE OF CITY OFFICIALS’

CITY OF SALINAS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL – CEASAR CHAVEZ PARK DG PATH January 2022 Page 43 of 70
ATTACHMENT D – PRICING PROPOSAL FORM

CESAR CHAVEZ PARK DG PATH
The work shall involve the furnishing of all labor, material, equipment, and incidentals to perform the construction of a decomposed granite path in Cesar Chavez Park in accordance with the Plan, Specifications and Special Provisions.

PROPOSAL ITEMS:

BASE BID
ITEM
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION APPROX QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Mobilization 1 LS $27,883.00 $27,883.00
2 Construction Area Signs 1 LS $3,075.00 $3,075.00
3 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $19,640.00 $19,640.00
4 Construction Site Management 1 LS $17,410.00 $17,410.00 5 Construction Surveys and Staking 1 LS $12,835.00 $12,835.00 6 Remove existing DG Path 34,830 SF $2.40 $83,592.00
7 Construct 10’ DG Path 36,080 SF $9.00 $324,720.00
8 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) 300 SF $27.00 $8,100.00
9 Construct 6’ DG Path 7,690 SF $11.00 $84,950.00
10 Remove and Replace 7’ x 14’ DG Bench Pad 5 EA $1,845.00 $9,225.00 11 Construct 6’ x 10’ Exercise Pad (location to be
field located) 6 EA
$1,845.00 $11,070.00
BASE BID TOTAL $602,500.00
Additive Alternate #1
ITEM
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION APPROX QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Continuous concrete header on 10’ Path 7216 LF X X

ADDITIVE ALTERNATIVE BID TOTAL X
The low bid will be on the base bid total only.

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-352, Version: 1
SB 1 Road Repair and Accountability Act - FY 2023/24 Projects Approve a Resolution adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2023-24 funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/8/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 13, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS P.E., L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ELISE RAMIREZ, P.E., SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER

PATRICK FUNG, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: SB 1 ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT – FY 2023/24

PROJECTS
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2023-24 to be funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

BACKGROUND:

SB 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 was passed by the California Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide. Annually, approximately $800 million will go to cities statewide, allocated on a per capita basis. The revenues for cities will come out of the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) where cities are expected to prioritize fixing their existing infrastructure first before having some additional flexibility for those funds for other transportation needs. SB 1 will provide Salinas an estimated $4 Million in RMRA funding in FY 2023-24.

In the current fiscal year, the City’s SB 1 funds are allocated amongst the Citywide Striping and Signing Projects (CIP 9081), Annual Pavement and Sidewalk Maintenance (CIP 9438), Street Preventive Maintenance Program (CIP 9981), and Williams Road Streetscape Project (CIP 9071).

To continue receiving SB 1 funds in the next fiscal year, the City must submit a Council-approved resolution with the City’s road maintenance and rehabilitation project list to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by July 1, 2023. The proposed list (below) reflects the City’s current transportation infrastructure priorities in FY 2023-24.

Page | 2
Project Title Description Location
Estimated
Useful Life Estimated Schedule
2023-24 Striping and
Signing
Improvements
Striping and Signing
maintenance at critical
locations not scheduled
for pavement
improvements.

E. Market St. (Front St. to
Sherwood Dr.); Maple St.
(S. Main St. to Pajaro St.);
Schilling Pl. (Hansen St. to
Eden St.); E. Alisal St.
(Griffin St. to Work St.);
Williams Rd. (Old Stage
Rd. to E. Boronda Rd.);
Riker St. at Clay St.; Terven
Ave. (Sanborn Pl. to Airport
Blvd.); Harkins Rd. (Hansen
St. to City Limits); W. Rossi
St. (N. Davis Rd. to N. Main
St.); Independence Blvd. (E.

Boronda Rd. to Nantucket
Blvd.); El Dorado Dr.
(Harden Pkwy. To E. Alvin
Dr.); Rider Ave. (Mimbrera
Way to Del Monte Ave.); N.

Main St. (Boronda Rd. to
Russel Rd.); Towt St. (E.

Alisal St. to E. Market St.);
2 years for
crosswalks
and 4 years
for all other
striping on
pavement
Start Construction July
2023
Completion June 2024
Boronda Road
Congestion Relief
Project – Phase 1
Construction of a
roundabout at East
Boronda Road and
McKinnon Street.

Includes pedestrian and
bicyclist improvements,
median islands,
pavement rehabilitation,
landscaping, storm and
sanitary sewer
improvements, striping,
and signing.

East Boronda Road from
Dartmouth Way to 1200 feet
East of McKinnon Street
20-25 years Start Construction
April 2024
Completion December
2025
The following previously proposed and adopted projects may also utilize Fiscal Year 2023-24 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues in their delivery Project Title Description Location
Estimated
Useful Life Estimated Schedule
Williams Road
Undergrounding,
Streetscape, &
Median Island
Streetscape
improvements, utility
improvements, road
reconstruction, median
island, and ADA
improvements.

Williams Road from Bardin
Road to East Alisal Street.
20-25 years Preconstruction
Design Start January
2024
Preconstruction
Completion June 2025
Page | 3
The City may elect to reprioritize its project list at any time. Formal notification to the CTC of any changes to the list is not required. However, the Project Expenditure Report submitted to the CTC each year in December will provide an opportunity for the City to communicate such changes to the CTC as part of the regular reporting process and transparency.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The staff recommendation supports the Council’s Goal of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability as it provides funding to the City’s capital projects for improvements to existing facilities and infrastructure.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION
The Public Works and Finance Departments work very closely in tracking SB 1 allocations, budgeting the funds appropriately, and adhering to the reporting requirements of the CTC.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The City is expected to receive approximately $4 Million in Fiscal Year 2023-24, and annually in years thereafter to help fund the City’s transportation infrastructure and safety projects.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
1 RESOLUTION NO. ___ (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FY 2023-24 FUNDED BY SB1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls like those described in the City and statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and WHEREAS, the City will receive an estimated $4 million in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2023-24 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the seventh year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and WHEREAS, the City has established its community’s transportation priorities (i.e., the project list herein) through a combination of Pavement Maintenance System (PMS) findings, direct community feedback to City Council members and staff; and transportation infrastructure assessments by City engineering and maintenance staff; and WHEREAS, the City uses a Pavement Management System to assist in development of the SB 1 project list, to ensure revenues are being used on the highest priority and cost-effective projects and incorporating equity in each City District that also meet the community’s priorities for transportation investment; and
WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate streets and roads and add active transportation infrastructure throughout the City this year and continue to perform preventive maintenance on roads into the near future; and WHEREAS, the 2020 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment estimated that the City’s streets and roads are in a “at higher risk” condition and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade our goal is to bring our streets and roads into a “good-excellent” condition; and 2 WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting edge technology, materials and practices, will have signification positive co-benefits statewide; and
WHEREAS, without revenue from SB 1, the City, would have otherwise had to make difficult decisions about deferring maintenance on a greater portion of its vast transportation infrastructure assets and risk increased wear and tear of exponential proportions; and WHEREAS, if the Legislature and Governor failed to act, City streets would have continued to deteriorate at a higher rate, having many and varied negative impacts on our community; and
WHEREAS, modernizing the local streets and roads system provides well-paying construction jobs and boosts local economies; and
WHEREAS, the local streets and roads system is also critical for Salinas’ farm to market needs, interconnectivity, multimodal needs, and commerce; and WHEREAS, police, fire, and emergency medical services all need safe reliable roads to react quickly to emergency calls and a few minutes of delay can be a matter of life and death; and WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving the local streets and roads system in good condition will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make the pedestrian experience safer and more appealing, which lead to reducing vehicle emissions and helping the State achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals; and WHEREAS, restoring roads before they fail also reduces construction time which results in less air pollution from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run-off; and WHEREAS, the City 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 HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the Salinas City Council, State of California, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The following list of newly proposed project will be funded in-part or solely with Fiscal Year 2023-24 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:
3 Project Title Description Location
Estimated
Useful
Life
Estimated
Schedule
2023-24 Striping and
Signing
Improvements
Striping and Signing
maintenance at critical
locations not scheduled
for pavement
improvements.

E. Market St. (Front St. to
Sherwood Dr.); Maple St.
(S. Main St. to Pajaro St.);
Schilling Pl. (Hansen St. to
Eden St.); E. Alisal St.
(Griffin St. to Work St.);
Williams Rd. (Old Stage
Rd. to E. Boronda Rd.);
Riker St. at Clay St.; Terven
Ave. (Sanborn Pl. to Airport
Blvd.); Harkins Rd. (Hansen
St. to City Limits); W. Rossi
St. (N. Davis Rd. to N. Main
St.); Independence Blvd. (E.

Boronda Rd. to Nantucket
Blvd.); El Dorado Dr.
(Harden Pkwy. To E. Alvin
Dr.); Rider Ave. (Mimbrera
Way to Del Monte Ave.); N.

Main St. (Boronda Rd. to
Russel Rd.); Towt St. (E.

Alisal St. to E. Market St.);
2 years for
crosswalks
and 4 years
for all other
striping on
pavement
Start Construction July
2023
Completion June 2024
Boronda Road
Congestion Relief
Project – Phase 1
Construction of a
roundabout at East
Boronda Road and
McKinnon Street.

Includes pedestrian and
bicyclist improvements,
median islands,
pavement rehabilitation,
landscaping, storm and
sanitary sewer
improvements, striping,
and signing.

East Boronda Road from
Dartmouth Way to 1200 feet
East of McKinnon Street
20-25 years Start Construction
April 2024
Completion December
2025
4 3. The following previously proposed and adopted projects may also utilize Fiscal Year 2023-24 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues in their delivery. With the relisting of these projects in the adopted fiscal year resolution, the City is reaffirming to the public and the State our intent to fund these projects with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Project Title Description Location
Estimated
Useful
Life
Estimated
Schedule
Williams Road
Undergrounding,
Streetscape, &
Median Island
Design and utility
coordination for
Streetscape
improvements, utility
improvements, road
reconstruction, median
island, and ADA
improvements.

Williams Road from Bardin
Road to East Alisal Street.
20-25 years Preconstruction
Design Start January
2024
Preconstruction
Completion June 2025
PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of June 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#23-363, Version: 1
Senate Bill 567 (Durazo): Homelessness Prevention Act
Consider approving a Resolution in support of Senate Bill 567 (Durazo).

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/8/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 13, 2023
DEPARTMENT: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CHRISTOPHER A. CALLIHAN, CITY ATTORNEY
TITLE: SENATE BILL 567; LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM SALINAS CITY

COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION MOTION:

A motion approving a Resolution authorizing submittal of a letter on behalf of the Salinas City Council in support of Senate Bill 567.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Council members González and Rocha have requested the City Council consider submitting a letter in support of SB 567 (Durazo). SB 567, now through the Senate and ordered to the Assembly, would make a series of revisions to existing statewide protections against eviction without just cause and provides enforcement mechanisms for the violation of statewide restrictions on residential rent increases and statewide protections against specified no fault evictions. A copy of SB 567 is attached to this Report for reference.

DISCUSSION:

The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Act) established limitations on the amount that residential landlords can raise the rent each year and times to stop landlords from evicting tenants unless they have a specified legal justification. A main goal of the Act was to shield tenants against sudden, large rent increases and to provide responsible tenants with assurance that they would not ordinarily be uprooted from their homes. According to the legislative analysis, SB 567, if approved by the legislature and signed by the Governor, would ensure that the no fault grounds for eviction established in the Act cannot be easily ignored or abused. SB 567 is intended to close loopholes in the provisions for evictions based on owner move-ins, demolishing or substantially remodeling a unit, or removal of the unit from the rental market. This bill is also intended to provide mechanisms for redress of violations of these eviction provisions and violations of the Act’s rent increase limitation provisions.

In specific, SB 567 would accomplish the following:

Page | 2

1. Requires, with respect to the no-fault just cause eviction based on an intent to occupy the residential real property, among other things, that the owner or the owner’s spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents occupy the residential real property for a minimum of 12 continuous months as the person’s primary residence, as provided. If the intended occupant fails to occupy the rental unit, as specified, then the owner must offer the unit to the tenant who vacated it at the same rent and lease terms, as specified. This right to return to the unit is not the exclusive remedy available to the tenant in this instance. The bill also allows the tenant to pursue a private right of action pursuant to the new enforcement mechanisms.

2. Requires, with respect to the no-fault just cause related to withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market, among other things, that all of the rental units at the rental property be withdrawn from the rental market, as prescribed. Requires an owner, before withdrawing all of the rental units at a residential real property, to record a notice with the county recorder that describes the real property, the dates applicable to the constraints, and the name of the owner of record of the real property. Requires the notice to be recorded in the grantor-grantee index.

3. Requires an owner who displaces a tenant in order to substantially remodel a unit to, among other things, provide the tenant with written notice that includes specified information, including a description of the repairs to be completed, the expected duration of the repairs, and a copy of permits necessary to undertake the repairs. Provides that a tenant is not required to vacate the unit on any days where a tenant could continue living in the unit without violating health, safety, and habitability codes and laws. Provides that a tenant has a right to move back into the rental unit, as specified, if repairs are not completed. This move-in right is not the exclusive remedy available to a tenant in this instance. The bill also allows the tenant to pursue a private right of action pursuant to the new enforcement mechanisms.

4. Prescribes new enforcement mechanisms with respect to the provisions described in the bill, including by making an owner who attempts to recover possession of a rental unit in material violation of the provisions of the bill liable to the tenant in a civil action for damages of up to three times the actual damages, including punitive damages. Also authorizes the state and the local government, within whose jurisdiction the rental unit is located, to bring actions for injunctive relief against the landlord, as specified.

5. Provides that a landlord who demands, accepts, receives, or retains any payment of rent in excess of the maximum rent allowed by the Act’s rent increase provisions shall be liable in a civil action to the tenant from whom those payments are demanded, accepted, received, or retained for all of the following: reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; injunctive relief; damages in the amount by which any payment demanded, accepted, received, or retained exceeds the maximum allowable rent; and upon a showing that the landlord has acted willfully or with oppression, fraud, or malice, a civil penalty of treble the amount by which any payment demanded, accepted, received, or retained exceeds the maximum allowable rent.

Page | 3

6. Provides that a local government within whose jurisdiction the residential real property is located shall have the authority to enforce the Act’s rent increase provisions and bring actions for injunctive relief on behalf of the city or county or on behalf of tenants seeking compliance by landlords with the rent increase provisions.

This bill originally sought to decrease the state’s maximum annual rent cap increase from ten percent or five percent plus inflation (whichever is lower) to five percent or the simple inflation increase. This provision of the bill was removed during the Senate’s review process.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The City Council’s approval of a Resolution in support of SB 567 is not a project subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3)).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The City Council’s support of SB 567 is consistent with and supports the City Council’s Goals of Housing/Affordable Housing and Effective and Culturally Responsive Government (City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025).

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The City Council’s approval of a Resolution in support of SB 567 would not have an impact on the City’s General Fund.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION
The City Attorney’s Office coordinated with the City Clerk and Council members González and Rocha on this Report.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
SB 567
Page | 4
RESOLUTION NO. ______ (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL TO SUBMIT A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 567 (DURAZO)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALINAS that the City Council supports the passage of Senate Bill 567 and the submittal of a letter from the City Council to Senator Durazo, and other appropriate State agencies and offices, expressing the City of Salinas’s support.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 21st day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
___________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 18, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 1, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 17, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 20, 2023
SENATE BILL No. 567
Introduced by Senator Durazo
(Coauthors: Senators Menjivar and Smallwood-Cuevas)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Haney, Lee, and McKinnor)
February 15, 2023
An act to amend Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12 of the Civil Code, relating to tenancy.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 567, as amended, Durazo. Termination of tenancy: no-fault just causes: gross rental rate increases.

Existing law, after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months, prohibits the owner of the residential real property from terminating the tenancy without just cause and requires that just cause to be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy. Existing law distinguishes between at-fault just cause and no-fault just cause and defines no-fault just cause to mean intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or the owner’s spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents, withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market, the owner complying with specified government orders that necessitate vacating the real property, and intent to demolish or to substantially remodel the residential real property.

95 This bill would, among other things, delete the condition for the tenancy termination provision described above that a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months. with respect to the no-fault just cause related to an eviction based on an intent to occupy the residential real property, require, among other things, that the owner or the owner’s spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents occupy the residential real property for a minimum of 12 continuous months as the person’s primary residence, as provided. The bill would also limit the applicability of each of those at-fault just causes, including by, also, with respect to the no-fault just cause related to withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market, requiring require that all of the rental units at the rental property be withdrawn from the rental market for at least 10 years, market, as prescribed. The bill would, among other things, would require an owner, before withdrawing all of the rental units at a residential real property as described above, to record a notice with the county recorder that describes the real property, the dates applicable to the constraints, and the name of the owner of record of the real property. The bill would require that notice to be recorded in the grantor-grantee index. By imposing a higher level of service on counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require an owner who displaces a tenant to substantially remodel a unit to provide the tenant with written notice providing the tenant with specified information, including a description of the repairs to be completed, the expected duration of the repairs, and a copy of permits necessary to undertake the repairs.

This bill would also prescribe new enforcement mechanisms with respect to the provisions described above, including by making an owner who attempts to recover possession of a rental unit in material violation of those provisions liable to the tenant in a civil action for damages of not less than of up to 3 times the actual damages. damages, in addition to punitive damages. The bill would authorize the state and the local government, within whose jurisdiction the rental unit is located, to bring actions for injunctive relief against the landlord, as specified.

Existing law, until January 1, 2030, prohibits an owner of residential real property from, over the course of any 12-month period, increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time 95 SB 567 — 2 —
during the 12 months before the effective date of the increase, subject to specified conditions.

This bill would make a landlord who demands, accepts, receives, or retains any payment of rent in excess of the maximum rent increase allowed on or after March 1, 2023, allowed, as prescribed, liable in a civil action to the tenant from whom those payments are demanded, accepted, received, or retained for certain relief, including, upon a showing that the landlord has acted willfully or with oppression, fraud, or malice, a civil penalty of treble the amount by which any payment demanded, accepted, received, or retained exceeds the maximum allowable rent. This bill would authorize a local government, within whose jurisdiction the residential property is located, to enforce the bill’s provisions and bring an action for injunctive relief, as specified.

This bill would also make a technical, nonsubstantive change to those provisions.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.

Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code is amended to line 2 read:
line 3 1946.2. (a)  Notwithstanding any other law, after a tenant has line 4 continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for line 5 12 months, the owner of residential real property shall not terminate line 6 a tenancy without just cause, which shall be stated in the written line 7 notice to terminate tenancy. If any additional adult tenants are line 8 added to the lease before an existing tenant has continuously and line 9 lawfully occupied the residential real property for 24 months, then line 10 this subdivision shall only apply if either of the following are line 11 satisfied:
line 12 (1)  All of the tenants have continuously and lawfully occupied line 13 the residential real property for 12 months or more. line 14 (2)  One or more tenants have continuously and lawfully line 15 occupied the residential real property for 24 months or more. 95 — 3 — SB 567
line 1 (b)  For purposes of this section, “just cause” means either of line 2 the following:
line 3 (1)  At-fault just cause, which means any of the following:
line 4 (A)  Default in the payment of rent.
line 5 (B)  A breach of a material term of the lease, as described in line 6 paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, line 7 including, but not limited to, violation of a provision of the lease line 8 after being issued a written notice to correct the violation. line 9 (C)  Maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or line 10 commission of a nuisance as described in paragraph (4) of Section line 11 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
line 12 (D)  Committing waste as described in paragraph (4) of Section line 13 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
line 14 (E)  The tenant had a written lease that terminated on or after line 15 January 1, 2020, or January 1, 2022, if the lease is for a tenancy line 16 in a mobilehome, and after a written request or demand from the line 17 owner, the tenant has refused to execute a written extension or line 18 renewal of the lease for an additional term of similar duration with line 19 similar provisions, provided that those terms do not violate this line 20 section or any other provision of law.
line 21 (F)  Criminal activity by the tenant on the residential real line 22 property, including any common areas, or any criminal activity or line 23 criminal threat, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 422 of the line 24 Penal Code, on or off the residential real property, that is directed line 25 at any owner or agent of the owner of the residential real property. line 26 (G)  Assigning or subletting the premises in violation of the line 27 tenant’s lease, as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of line 28 the Code of Civil Procedure.
line 29 (H)  The tenant’s refusal to allow the owner to enter the line 30 residential real property as authorized by Sections 1101.5 and 1954 line 31 of this code, and Sections 13113.7 and 17926.1 of the Health and line 32 Safety Code.
line 33 (I)  Using the premises for an unlawful purpose as described in line 34 paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. line 35 (J)  The employee, agent, or licensee’s failure to vacate after line 36 their termination as an employee, agent, or a licensee as described line 37 in paragraph (1) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. line 38 (K)  When the tenant fails to deliver possession of the residential line 39 real property after providing the owner written notice as provided line 40 in Section 1946 of the tenant’s intention to terminate the hiring of 95 SB 567 — 4 —
line 1 the real property, or makes a written offer to surrender that is line 2 accepted in writing by the landlord, but fails to deliver possession line 3 at the time specified in that written notice as described in paragraph line 4 (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. line 5 (2)  No-fault just cause, which means any of the following:
line 6 (A)  (i)  Intent to occupy the residential real property by the line 7 owner or the owner’s spouse, domestic partner, children, line 8 grandchildren, parents, or grandparents for a minimum of 36 12 line 9 continuous months as that person’s primary residence. line 10 (ii)  For leases entered into on or after July 1, 2020, or July 1, line 11 2022, if the lease is for a tenancy in a mobilehome, clause (i) shall line 12 apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if line 13 a provision of the lease allows the owner to terminate the lease if line 14 the owner, or the owner’s spouse, domestic partner, children, line 15 grandchildren, parents, or grandparents, unilaterally decides to line 16 occupy the residential real property. Addition of a provision line 17 allowing the owner to terminate the lease as described in this clause line 18 to a new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term lease line 19 constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of subparagraph line 20 (E) of paragraph (1).
line 21 (iii)  (I)  Subject to subclause (II), this This subparagraph does line 22 not apply if the intended occupant occupies a rental unit on the line 23 property or if a vacancy of a similar unit already exists at the line 24 property.
line 25 (II)  This clause does not apply if the intended occupant is line 26 disabled, and a different unit is necessary to accommodate the line 27 intended occupant’s disability.
line 28 (iv)  The written notice terminating a tenancy for a just cause line 29 pursuant to this subparagraph shall contain the name, address of line 30 primary residence, name or names and relationship to the owner line 31 of the intended occupant.
line 32 (v)  Clause (i) applies only if the intended occupant moves into line 33 the rental unit within 90 days after the tenant vacates and occupies line 34 the rental unit as a primary residence for at least 36 12 consecutive line 35 months.
line 36 (vi)  If the intended occupant fails to occupy the rental unit within line 37 90 days after the tenant vacates or fails to occupy the rental unit line 38 as their primary residence for at least 36 12 consecutive months, line 39 the owner shall offer the unit to the tenant who vacated it at the line 40 same rent and lease terms in effect at the time the tenant vacated 95 — 5 — SB 567
line 1 and shall reimburse the tenant for reasonable moving expenses line 2 incurred in excess of any relocation assistance that was paid to the line 3 tenant in connection with the written notice.
line 4 (vii)  For a new tenancy commenced during the time periods line 5 described in clause (v), the accommodations shall be offered and line 6 rented or leased at the lawful rent in effect at the time any notice line 7 of termination of tenancy is served.
line 8 (viii)  (I)  Subject to subclause (II), clause (i) does not apply if line 9 the tenant is at least 60 years of age, disabled, or certified as being line 10 terminally ill by the tenant’s treating physician. line 11 (II)  This clause does not apply if the intended occupant is line 12 disabled and no other units are available at the property. line 13 (ix)
line 14 (viii)  As used in this subparagraph:
line 15 (I)  “Intended occupant” means the owner of the residential real line 16 property or the owner’s spouse, domestic partner, child, grandchild, line 17 parent, or grandparent, as described in clause (i). line 18 (II)  “Owner” means an owner who is a natural person that has line 19 at least a 51-percent recorded ownership interest in the property. line 20 (B)  Withdrawal of all of the rental units at the residential real line 21 property from the rental market for at least 10 years. market. line 22 (i)  If a rental unit withdrawn from the rental market pursuant line 23 to this subparagraph is offered again for rent or lease for residential line 24 purposes within five years of the date the rental unit was withdrawn line 25 from rent or lease, all of the following shall apply:
line 26 (I)  The owner of the rental unit shall be liable to any tenant or line 27 lessee who was displaced from the property by that action for any line 28 damages.
line 29 (II)  An owner who offers the rental unit again for rent or lease line 30 shall first offer the unit for rent or lease to the tenant or lessee line 31 displaced from that unit pursuant to this subparagraph on the same line 32 terms as the tenant’s previous lease and at the same rental rate plus line 33 any allowable increases available under Section 1947.12 if the line 34 tenant has advised the owner in writing, within 30 days of the line 35 displacement, of the tenant’s desire to consider an offer to renew line 36 the tenancy and has furnished the owner with current contact line 37 information to which that offer is to be directed. The displaced line 38 tenant shall have 30 days to accept the offer and communicate line 39 acceptance to the landlord.
95 SB 567 — 6 —
line 1 (III)  For any tenancy commenced during the time periods line 2 described in this clause, the accommodations shall be offered and line 3 rented or leased at the lawful rent in effect at the time the notice line 4 of termination of tenancy was served plus annual adjustments line 5 available under Section 1947.12.
line 6 (ii)  Notwithstanding paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section line 7 1947.12, if a rental unit withdrawn from the rental market for the line 8 just cause authorized pursuant to this subparagraph is demolished, line 9 and a new rental unit is constructed on the same property and line 10 offered for rent or lease within five years of the date the rental unit line 11 was withdrawn from rent or lease, the newly constructed rental line 12 unit shall be subject to Section 1947.12.
line 13 (iii)
line 14 (i)  This subparagraph shall apply to any successor in interest of line 15 an owner who has withdrawn rental units from rent or lease line 16 pursuant to this subparagraph.
line 17 (iv)
line 18 (ii)  (I)  Before withdrawing all of the rental units at a residential line 19 real property pursuant to this subparagraph, an owner shall record line 20 a notice with the county recorder that describes the real property, line 21 the dates applicable to the constraints, and the name of the owner line 22 of record of the real property.
line 23 (II)  The notice required by this clause shall be indexed in the line 24 grantor-grantee index.
line 25 (III)  A person who acquires, as a bona fide purchaser for value, line 26 title to real property subsequent to the date upon which all rental line 27 units thereon have been withdrawn from rent or lease shall not be line 28 a successor in interest for the purposes of this chapter if the notice line 29 prescribed by this clause has not been recorded with the county line 30 recorder at least one day before the transfer of title. line 31 (v)  (I)  Except as provided in subclause (II), the line 32 (iii)  The date on which the rental unit is withdrawn from rent line 33 or lease pursuant to this subparagraph, as well as the date of line 34 termination of tenancy, shall be deemed to be 120 days from the line 35 delivery of the written notice to terminate the tenancy. line 36 (II)  If the tenant or lessee is at least 62 years of age or disabled, line 37 as defined in Section 12955.3 of the Government Code, and has line 38 lived in the rental unit or unit within the rental unit for at least one line 39 year before the date of delivery of the notice required by clause line 40 (iv), the date of withdrawal of the rental unit of that tenant or lessee 95 — 7 — SB 567
line 1 shall be extended to one year after the date of delivery of that line 2 notice to the tenant if the tenant gives written notice of the tenant’s line 3 entitlement to an extension to the owner within 60 days of the date line 4 of delivery of the notice of intent to withdraw. line 5 (C)  (i)  The owner complying with any of the following:
line 6 (I)  An order issued by a government agency or court relating line 7 to habitability that necessitates permanently vacating the residential line 8 real property.
line 9 (II)  An order issued by a government agency or court to line 10 permanently vacate the residential real property. line 11 (III)  A local ordinance that necessitates permanently vacating line 12 the residential real property.
line 13 (ii)  If it is determined by any government agency or court that line 14 the tenant is at fault for the condition or conditions triggering the line 15 order or need to vacate under clause (i), the tenant shall not be line 16 entitled to relocation assistance as outlined in paragraph (3) of line 17 subdivision (d).
line 18 (D)  (i)  Temporary relocation Intent to demolish or to line 19 substantially remodel the residential real property. line 20 (ii)  For purposes of this subparagraph, “substantially remodel” line 21 means the replacement or substantial modification of any structural, line 22 electrical, plumbing, or mechanical system that requires a permit line 23 from a governmental agency, or the abatement of hazardous line 24 materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or asbestos, in line 25 accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, that line 26 cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner with that line 27 allows the tenant to remain living in place, the place and that line 28 requires the tenant to vacate the residential real property for at line 29 least 60 days, that is required to bring the property into compliance line 30 with applicable codes and laws affecting the health and safety of line 31 the tenants, and for which all necessary permits have been obtained line 32 by the owner as of the date that the termination notice is served. line 33 30 consecutive days. A tenant is not required to vacate the line 34 residential real property on any days where a tenant could continue line 35 living in the residential real property without violating health, line 36 safety, and habitability codes and laws. Cosmetic improvements line 37 alone, including painting, decorating, and minor repairs, or other line 38 work that can be performed safely without having the residential line 39 real property vacated, do not qualify as substantial rehabilitation. 95 SB 567 — 8 —
line 1 (iii)  A written notice terminating a tenancy for a just cause line 2 pursuant to this subparagraph shall include all of the following line 3 information:
line 4 (I)  A statement informing tenants of their right to temporary line 5 relocation expenses. the intent to demolish or substantially remodel line 6 the rental unit.
line 7 (II)  The following statement:
line 8
line 9 “When
line 10 “If the needed repairs are not completed on your unit, the owner line 11 must offer you the opportunity to return to your unit with a rental line 12 agreement containing the same terms as your original rental line 13 agreement at the same rental rate.”
line 14
line 15 (III)  A description of the repairs to be completed and completed, line 16 the approximate expected duration of the repairs. repairs, and a line 17 copy of permits necessary to undertake the repairs. line 18 (IV)  A notification that if the tenant is interested in reoccupying line 19 the rental unit following repairs, the tenant shall inform the owner line 20 of the tenant’s interest in reoccupying the rental unit following line 21 repairs and provide to the owner the tenant’s temporary address, line 22 telephone number, and email address.
line 23 (V)  A notification of the tenant’s right to elect permanent line 24 relocation pursuant to clause (vi), the exact amount of the line 25 permanent relocation payment to which the tenant would be line 26 entitled, and instructions for claiming permanent relocation. line 27 (iv)  Notwithstanding subdivision (d), an owner issuing a written line 28 notice terminating a tenancy for a just cause pursuant to this line 29 subparagraph shall provide any tenant subject to the termination line 30 with comparable alternate housing in the same city as the rental line 31 unit or pay all actual expenses associated with temporary relocation line 32 for the duration of the relocation.
line 33 (v)  (I)  If the owner recovers possession pursuant to this line 34 subparagraph, whether or not pursuant to an unlawful detainer line 35 judgment, the tenant shall be given the right of first refusal to line 36 reoccupy the unit at the same rental terms.
line 37 (II)  An owner shall notify a tenant in writing that the unit is line 38 ready to reoccupy.
line 39 (vi)  (I)  A tenant who receives a written notice terminating a line 40 tenancy for a just cause pursuant to this subparagraph may elect 95 — 9 — SB 567
line 1 for permanent relocation instead of reoccupying the unit by line 2 notifying the owner of the tenant’s intent to permanently relocate line 3 in writing within 30 days of service of the termination notice. line 4 (II)  If the tenant elects for permanent relocation pursuant to this line 5 clause, notwithstanding any other law, the owner shall pay to the line 6 tenant a permanent relocation payment of six times the current fair line 7 market rent, calculated pursuant to Section 888.113 of Title 24 of line 8 the Code of Federal Regulations, for the jurisdiction in which the line 9 rental unit is located, corresponding to the size of the rental unit. line 10 (c)  Before an owner of residential real property issues a notice line 11 to terminate a tenancy for just cause that is a curable lease line 12 violation, the owner shall first give notice of the violation to the line 13 tenant with an opportunity to cure the violation pursuant to line 14 paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If line 15 the violation is not cured within the time period set forth in the line 16 notice, a three-day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure line 17 may thereafter be served to terminate the tenancy. line 18 (d)  (1)  For a tenancy for which just cause is required to line 19 terminate the tenancy under subdivision (a), if an owner of line 20 residential real property issues a termination notice based on a line 21 no-fault just cause described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), line 22 the owner shall, regardless of the tenant’s income, at the owner’s line 23 option, do one of the following:
line 24 (A)  Assist the tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment line 25 to the tenant as described in paragraph (3).
line 26 (B)  Waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of line 27 the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due.
line 28 (2)  If an owner issues a notice to terminate a tenancy for no-fault line 29 just cause, the owner shall notify the tenant in the written line 30 termination notice of the tenant’s right to relocation assistance or line 31 rent waiver pursuant to this section. If the owner elects to waive line 32 the rent for the final month of the tenancy as provided in line 33 subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), the notice shall state the amount line 34 of rent waived and that no rent is due for the final month of the line 35 tenancy.
line 36 (3)  (A)  The amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver shall line 37 be equal to one month of the tenant’s rent that was in effect when line 38 the owner issued the notice to terminate the tenancy. Any relocation line 39 assistance shall be provided within 15 calendar days of service of line 40 the notice.
95 SB 567 — 10 —
line 1 (B)  If a tenant fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice line 2 to terminate the tenancy, the actual amount of any relocation line 3 assistance or rent waiver provided pursuant to this subdivision line 4 shall be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession. line 5 (C)  The relocation assistance or rent waiver required by this line 6 subdivision shall be credited against any other relocation assistance line 7 required by any other law.
line 8 (4)  An owner’s failure to strictly comply with this subdivision line 9 shall render the notice of termination void.
line 10 (e)  This section shall not apply to the following types of line 11 residential real properties or residential circumstances:
line 12 (1)  Transient and tourist hotel occupancy as defined in line 13 subdivision (b) of Section 1940.
line 14 (2)  Housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious line 15 facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for line 16 the elderly, as defined in Section 1569.2 of the Health and Safety line 17 Code, or an adult residential facility, as defined in Chapter 6 of line 18 Division 6 of Title 22 of the Manual of Policies and Procedures line 19 published by the State Department of Social Services. line 20 (3)  Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher line 21 education or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school. line 22 (4)  Housing accommodations in which the tenant shares line 23 bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner who maintains their line 24 principal residence at the residential real property. line 25 (5)  Single-family owner-occupied residences, including both line 26 of the following:
line 27 (A)  A residence in which the owner-occupant rents or leases line 28 no more than two units or bedrooms, including, but not limited to, line 29 an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit. line 30 (B)  A mobilehome.
line 31 (6)  A property containing two separate dwelling units within a line 32 single structure in which the owner occupied one of the units as line 33 the owner’s principal place of residence at the beginning of the line 34 tenancy, so long as the owner continues in occupancy, and neither line 35 unit is an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling line 36 unit.
line 37 (7)  Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy line 38 within the previous 15 years, unless the housing is a mobilehome. line 39 (8)  Housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained line 40 in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded 95 — 11 — SB 567
line 1 document as affordable housing for persons and families of very line 2 low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the line 3 Health and Safety Code, or subject to an agreement that provides line 4 housing subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families line 5 of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 line 6 of the Health and Safety Code or comparable federal statutes. line 7 (9)  Residential real property, including a mobilehome, that is line 8 alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, provided line 9 that both of the following apply:
line 10 (A)  The owner is not any of the following:
line 11 (i)  A real estate investment trust, as defined in Section 856 of line 12 the Internal Revenue Code.
line 13 (ii)  A corporation.
line 14 (iii)  A limited liability company in which at least one member line 15 is a corporation.
line 16 (iv)  Management of a mobilehome park, as defined in Section line 17 798.2.
line 18 (B)  (i)  The tenants have been provided written notice that the line 19 residential property is exempt from this section using the following line 20 statement:
line 21 “This property is not subject to the rent limits imposed by Section line 22 1947.12 of the Civil Code and is not subject to the just cause line 23 requirements of Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code. This property line 24 meets the requirements of Sections 1947.12 (d)(5) and 1946.2 line 25 (e)(8) of the Civil Code and the owner is not any of the following:
line 26 (1) a real estate investment trust, as defined by Section 856 of the line 27 Internal Revenue Code; (2) a corporation; or (3) a limited liability line 28 company in which at least one member is a corporation.” line 29 (ii)  (I)  Except as provided in subclause (II), for a tenancy line 30 existing before July 1, 2020, the notice required under clause (i) line 31 may, but is not required to, be provided in the rental agreement. line 32 (II)  For a tenancy in a mobilehome existing before July 1, 2022, line 33 the notice required under clause (i) may, but is not required to, be line 34 provided in the rental agreement.
line 35 (iii)  (I)  Except as provided in subclause (II), for any tenancy line 36 commenced or renewed on or after July 1, 2020, the notice required line 37 under clause (i) must be provided in the rental agreement. line 38 (II)  For any tenancy in a mobilehome commenced or renewed line 39 on or after July 1, 2022, the notice required under clause (i) shall line 40 be provided in the rental agreement.
95 SB 567 — 12 —
line 1 (iv)  Addition of a provision containing the notice required under line 2 clause (i) to any new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term line 3 lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of line 4 subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). line 5 (f)  An owner of residential real property subject to this section line 6 shall provide notice to the tenant as follows:
line 7 (1)  (A)  Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for any tenancy line 8 commenced or renewed on or after July 1, 2020, as an addendum line 9 to the lease or rental agreement, or as a written notice signed by line 10 the tenant, with a copy provided to the tenant. line 11 (B)  For a tenancy in a mobilehome commenced or renewed on line 12 or after July 1, 2022, as an addendum to the lease or rental line 13 agreement, or as a written notice signed by the tenant, with a copy line 14 provided to the tenant.
line 15 (2)  (A)  Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for a tenancy line 16 existing prior to July 1, 2020, by written notice to the tenant no line 17 later than August 1, 2020, or as an addendum to the lease or rental line 18 agreement.
line 19 (B)  For a tenancy in a mobilehome existing prior to July 1, line 20 2022, by written notice to the tenant no later than August 1, 2022, line 21 or as an addendum to the lease or rental agreement. line 22 (3)  The notification or lease provision shall be in no less than line 23 12-point type, and shall include the following:
line 24
line 25 “California law limits the amount your rent can be increased. See line 26 Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code for more information. California line 27 law also provides that after all of the tenants have continuously line 28 and lawfully occupied the property for 12 months or more or at line 29 least one of the tenants has continuously and lawfully occupied line 30 the property for 24 months or more, a landlord must provide a line 31 statement of cause in any notice to terminate a tenancy. See Section line 32 1946.2 of the Civil Code for more information.” line 33
line 34 The notification or lease provision shall be subject to Section 1632. line 35 (g)  An owner terminating a tenancy pursuant to this section line 36 shall allege and prove that the recovery of possession is proceeding line 37 in good faith and honest intent, and there is not an ulterior motive line 38 for the reason stated in the written termination notice. line 39 (h)
95 — 13 — SB 567
line 1 (g)  An owner’s failure to comply with any provision of this line 2 section shall render the written termination notice void. line 3 (i)
line 4 (h)  (1)  An attempt to recover possession of a rental unit in line 5 material violation of this section shall render the owner liable to line 6 the tenant in a civil action for damages of not less than up to three line 7 times the actual damages. An award may also be entered for line 8 punitive damages for the benefit of the tenant against the owner. line 9 (2)  The state and the local government in which the rental unit line 10 is located shall have the authority to do both of the following:
line 11 bring actions for injunctive relief on behalf of the state, city, or line 12 county, or on behalf of tenants seeking compliance by landlords line 13 with this section. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit line 14 the remedies that a state or local government has under existing line 15 law.
line 16 (A)  Enforce the provisions of this section.
line 17 (B)  Bring actions for injunctive relief on behalf of the state, line 18 city, or county, or on behalf of tenants seeking compliance by line 19 landlords with this section.
line 20 (C)  With respect to a local government, enact additional line 21 consequences for no-fault evictions which are carried out in line 22 violation of this section.
line 23 (3)  A prevailing party in an action brought pursuant to this line 24 subdivision that is not an unlawful detainer action shall recover line 25 costs, any damages allowable by law, and reasonable attorney’s line 26 fees.
line 27 (j)
line 28 (i)  (1)  This section does not apply to the following residential line 29 real property:
line 30 (A)  Residential real property subject to a local ordinance line 31 requiring just cause for termination of a residential tenancy adopted line 32 on or before September 1, 2019, in which case the local ordinance line 33 shall apply.
line 34 (B)  Residential real property subject to a local ordinance line 35 requiring just cause for termination of a residential tenancy adopted line 36 or amended after September 1, 2019, that is more protective than line 37 this section, in which case the local ordinance shall apply. For line 38 purposes of this subparagraph, an ordinance is “more protective” line 39 if it meets all of the following criteria:
95 SB 567 — 14 —
line 1 (i)  The just cause for termination of a residential tenancy under line 2 the local ordinance is consistent with this section. line 3 (ii)  The ordinance further limits the reasons for termination of line 4 a residential tenancy, provides for higher relocation assistance line 5 amounts, or provides additional tenant protections that are not line 6 prohibited by any other provision of law.
line 7 (iii)  The local government has made a binding finding within line 8 their local ordinance that the ordinance is more protective than the line 9 provisions of this section.
line 10 (2)  A residential real property shall not be subject to both a local line 11 ordinance requiring just cause for termination of a residential line 12 tenancy and this section.
line 13 (3)  A local ordinance adopted after September 1, 2019, that is line 14 less protective than this section shall not be enforced unless this line 15 section is repealed.
line 16 (k)
line 17 (j)  Any waiver of the rights under this section shall be void as line 18 contrary to public policy.
line 19 (l)
line 20 (k)  For the purposes of this section, the following definitions line 21 shall apply:
line 22 (1)  “Owner” includes any person, acting as principal or through line 23 an agent, having the right to offer residential real property for rent, line 24 and includes a predecessor in interest to the owner. line 25 (2)  “Residential real property” means any dwelling or unit that line 26 is intended for human habitation, including any dwelling or unit line 27 in a mobilehome park.
line 28 (3)  “Tenancy” means the lawful occupation of residential real line 29 property and includes a lease or sublease.
line 30 (m)
line 31 (l)  This section shall not apply to a homeowner of a mobilehome, line 32 as defined in Section 798.9.
line 33 (n)
line 34 (m)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, line 35 2030, and as of that date is repealed.
line 36 SEC. 2. Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code is amended to read:
line 37 1947.12. (a)  (1)  Subject to subdivision (b), an owner of line 38 residential real property shall not, over the course of any 12-month line 39 period, increase the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more line 40 than 5 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 95 — 15 — SB 567
line 1 10 percent, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate line 2 charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months line 3 prior to the effective date of the increase. In determining the lowest line 4 gross rental amount pursuant to this section, any rent discounts, line 5 incentives, concessions, or credits offered by the owner of such line 6 unit of residential real property and accepted by the tenant shall line 7 be excluded. The gross per-month rental rate and any owner-offered line 8 discounts, incentives, concessions, or credits shall be separately line 9 listed and identified in the lease or rental agreement or any line 10 amendments to an existing lease or rental agreement. line 11 (2)  If the same tenant remains in occupancy of a unit of line 12 residential real property over any 12-month period, the gross rental line 13 rate for the unit of residential real property shall not be increased line 14 in more than two increments over that 12-month period, subject line 15 to the other restrictions of this subdivision governing gross rental line 16 rate increase.
line 17 (b)  For a new tenancy in which no tenant from the prior tenancy line 18 remains in lawful possession of the residential real property, the line 19 owner may establish the initial rental rate not subject to subdivision line 20 (a). Subdivision (a) is only applicable to subsequent increases after line 21 that initial rental rate has been established.
line 22 (c)  A tenant of residential real property subject to this section line 23 shall not enter into a sublease that results in a total rent for the line 24 premises that exceeds the allowable rental rate authorized by line 25 subdivision (a). Nothing in this subdivision authorizes a tenant to line 26 sublet or assign the tenant’s interest where otherwise prohibited. line 27 (d)  This section shall not apply to the following residential real line 28 properties:
line 29 (1)  Housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained line 30 in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded line 31 document as affordable housing for persons and families of very line 32 low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the line 33 Health and Safety Code, or subject to an agreement that provides line 34 housing subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families line 35 of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 line 36 of the Health and Safety Code or comparable federal statutes. line 37 (2)  Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher line 38 education or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school. line 39 (3)  Housing subject to rent or price control through a public line 40 entity’s valid exercise of its police power consistent with Chapter 95 SB 567 — 16 —
line 1 2.7 (commencing with Section 1954.50) that restricts annual line 2 increases in the rental rate to an amount less than that provided in line 3 subdivision (a).
line 4 (4)  Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy line 5 within the previous 15 years, unless the housing is a mobilehome. line 6 (5)  A property containing two separate dwelling units within a line 7 single structure in which the owner occupied one of the units as line 8 the owner’s principal place of residence at the beginning of the line 9 tenancy, so long as the owner continues in occupancy, and neither line 10 unit is an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling line 11 unit.
line 12 (6)  Residential real property that is alienable separate from the line 13 title to any other dwelling unit, including a mobilehome, provided line 14 that both of the following apply:
line 15 (A)  The owner is not any of the following:
line 16 (i)  A real estate investment trust, as defined in Section 856 of line 17 the Internal Revenue Code.
line 18 (ii)  A corporation.
line 19 (iii)  A limited liability company in which at least one member line 20 is a corporation.
line 21 (iv)  Management of a mobilehome park, as defined in Section line 22 798.2.
line 23 (B)  (i)  The tenants have been provided written notice that the line 24 residential real property is exempt from this section using the line 25 following statement:
line 26 “This property is not subject to the rent limits imposed by Section line 27 1947.12 of the Civil Code and is not subject to the just cause line 28 requirements of Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code. This property line 29 meets the requirements of Sections 1947.12 (d)(5) and 1946.2 line 30 (e)(8) of the Civil Code and the owner is not any of the following:
line 31 (1) a real estate investment trust, as defined by Section 856 of the line 32 Internal Revenue Code; (2) a corporation; or (3) a limited liability line 33 company in which at least one member is a corporation.” line 34 (ii)  For a tenancy existing before July 1, 2020, or July 1, 2022, line 35 if the lease is for a tenancy in a mobilehome, the notice required line 36 under clause (i) may, but is not required to, be provided in the line 37 rental agreement.
line 38 (iii)  For a tenancy commenced or renewed on or after July 1, line 39 2020, or July 1, 2022, if the lease is for a tenancy in a mobilehome, 95 — 17 — SB 567
line 1 the notice required under clause (i) must be provided in the rental line 2 agreement.
line 3 (iv)  Addition of a provision containing the notice required under line 4 clause (i) to any new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term line 5 lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of line 6 subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section line 7 1946.2.
line 8 (e)  An owner shall provide notice of any increase in the rental line 9 rate, pursuant to subdivision (a), to each tenant in accordance with line 10 Section 827.
line 11 (f)  (1)  On or before January 1, 2030, the Legislative Analyst’s line 12 Office shall report to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness line 13 of this section and Section 1947.13. The report shall include, but line 14 not be limited to, the impact of the rental rate cap pursuant to line 15 subdivision (a) on the housing market within the state. line 16 (2)  The report required by paragraph (1) shall be submitted in line 17 compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code. line 18 (g)  For the purposes of this section, the following definitions line 19 shall apply:
line 20 (1)  “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for All line 21 Items” means the following:
line 22 (A)  The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for line 23 All Items (CPI-U) for the metropolitan area in which the property line 24 is located, as published by the United States Bureau of Labor line 25 Statistics, which are as follows:
line 26 (i)  The CPI-U for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim line 27 metropolitan area covering the Counties of Los Angeles and line 28 Orange.
line 29 (ii)  The CPI-U for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario line 30 metropolitan area covering the Counties of Riverside and San line 31 Bernardino.
line 32 (iii)  The CPI-U for the San Diego-Carlsbad metropolitan area line 33 covering the County of San Diego.
line 34 (iv)  The CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward line 35 metropolitan area covering the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, line 36 Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo.
line 37 (v)  Any successor metropolitan area index to any of the indexes line 38 listed in clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive.
line 39 (B)  If the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics does not line 40 publish a CPI-U for the metropolitan area in which the property 95 SB 567 — 18 —
line 1 is located, the California Consumer Price Index for All Urban line 2 Consumers for All Items as published by the Department of line 3 Industrial Relations.
line 4 (C)  On or after January 1, 2021, if the United States Bureau of line 5 Labor Statistics publishes a CPI-U index for one or more line 6 metropolitan areas not listed in subparagraph (A), that CPI-U index line 7 shall apply in those areas with respect to rent increases that take line 8 effect on or after August 1 of the calendar year in which the line 9 12-month change in that CPI-U, as described in subparagraph (B) line 10 of paragraph (3), is first published.
line 11 (2)  “Owner” includes any person, acting as principal or through line 12 an agent, having the right to offer residential real property for rent, line 13 and includes a predecessor in interest to the owner. line 14 (3)  (A)  “Percentage change in the cost of living” means the line 15 percentage change, computed pursuant to subparagraph (B), in the line 16 applicable, as determined pursuant to paragraph (1), Consumer line 17 Price Index for All Urban Consumers for All Items. line 18 (B)  (i)  For rent increases that take effect before August 1 of line 19 any calendar year, the following shall apply:
line 20 (I)  The percentage change shall be the percentage change in the line 21 amount published for April of the immediately preceding calendar line 22 year and April of the year before that.
line 23 (II)  If there is not an amount published in April for the applicable line 24 geographic area, the percentage change shall be the percentage line 25 change in the amount published for March of the immediately line 26 preceding calendar year and March of the year before that. line 27 (ii)  For rent increases that take effect on or after August 1 of line 28 any calendar year, the following shall apply:
line 29 (I)  The percentage change shall be the percentage change in the line 30 amount published for April of that calendar year and April of the line 31 immediately preceding calendar year.
line 32 (II)  If there is not an amount published in April for the applicable line 33 geographic area, the percentage change shall be the percentage line 34 change in the amount published for March of that calendar year line 35 and March of the immediately preceding calendar year. line 36 (iii)  The percentage change shall be rounded to the nearest line 37 one-tenth of 1 percent.
line 38 (4)  “Residential real property” means any dwelling or unit that line 39 is intended for human habitation, including any dwelling or unit line 40 in a mobilehome park.
95 — 19 — SB 567
line 1 (5)  “Tenancy” means the lawful occupation of residential real line 2 property and includes a lease or sublease.
line 3 (h)  (1)  This section shall apply to all rent increases subject to line 4 subdivision (a) occurring on or after March 15, 2019, except as line 5 provided in subdivision (i).
line 6 (2)  In the event that an owner has increased the rent by more line 7 than the amount permissible under subdivision (a) between March line 8 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, both of the following shall apply:
line 9 (A)  The applicable rent on January 1, 2020, shall be the rent as line 10 of March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase under line 11 subdivision (a).
line 12 (B)  An owner shall not be liable to the tenant for any line 13 corresponding rent overpayment.
line 14 (3)  An owner of residential real property subject to subdivision line 15 (a) who increased the rental rate on that residential real property line 16 on or after March 15, 2019, but prior to January 1, 2020, by an line 17 amount less than the rental rate increase permitted by subdivision line 18 (a) shall be allowed to increase the rental rate twice, as provided line 19 in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), within 12 months of March line 20 15, 2019, but in no event shall that rental rate increase exceed the line 21 maximum rental rate increase permitted by subdivision (a). line 22 (i)  (1)  Notwithstanding subdivision (h), this section shall apply line 23 only to rent increases for a tenancy in a mobilehome subject to line 24 subdivision (a) occurring on or after February 18, 2021. line 25 (2)  In the event that an owner has increased the rent for a line 26 tenancy in a mobilehome by more than the amount permissible line 27 under subdivision (a) between February 18, 2021, and January 1, line 28 2022, both of the following shall apply:
line 29 (A)  The applicable rent on January 1, 2022, shall be the rent as line 30 of February 18, 2021, plus the maximum permissible increase line 31 under subdivision (a).
line 32 (B)  An owner shall not be liable to the tenant for any line 33 corresponding rent overpayment.
line 34 (3)  An owner of residential real property subject to subdivision line 35 (a) who increased the rental rate on that residential real property line 36 on or after February 18, 2021, but prior to January 1, 2022, by an line 37 amount less than the rental rate increase permitted by subdivision line 38 (a) shall be allowed to increase the rental rate twice, as provided line 39 in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), within 12 months of February 95 SB 567 — 20 —
line 1 18, 2021, but in no event shall that rental rate increase exceed the line 2 maximum rental rate increase permitted by subdivision (a). line 3 (j)  This section shall not apply to a homeowner of a mobilehome, line 4 as defined in Section 798.9.
line 5 (k)  (1)  The amendments to this section made by the act adding line 6 this subdivision shall apply to all rent increases subject to line 7 subdivision (a) occurring on or after March 1, 2023. line 8 (2)  In the event that an owner has increased the rent by more line 9 than the amount permissible under subdivision (a), as amended by line 10 the act adding this subdivision, between March 1, 2023, and line 11 January 1, 2024, both of the following shall apply:
line 12 (A)  The applicable rent on January 1, 2024, shall be the rent as line 13 of March 1, 2023, plus the maximum permissible increase under line 14 subdivision (a), as amended by the act adding this subdivision. line 15 (B)  An owner shall not be liable to the tenant for any line 16 corresponding rent overpayment.
line 17 (3)  An owner of residential real property subject to subdivision line 18 (a) who increased the rental rate on that residential real property line 19 on or after March 1, 2023, but before January 1, 2024, by an line 20 amount less than the rental rate increase permitted by subdivision line 21 (a), as amended by the act adding this subdivision, shall be allowed line 22 to increase the rental rate twice, as provided in paragraph (2) of line 23 subdivision (a), before March 1, 2024, but that rental rate increase line 24 shall not exceed the maximum rental rate increase permitted by line 25 subdivision (a), as amended by the act adding this subdivision. line 26 (l)
line 27 (k)  (1)  A landlord who demands, accepts, receives, or retains line 28 any payment of rent in excess of the maximum rent allowed by line 29 this section shall be liable in a civil action to the tenant from whom line 30 those payments are demanded, accepted, received, or retained for line 31 all of the following:
line 32 (A)  Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
line 33 (B)  Injunctive relief.
line 34 (C)  Damages in the amount by which any payment demanded, line 35 accepted, received, or retained exceeds the maximum allowable line 36 rent.
line 37 (D)  Upon a showing that the landlord has acted willfully or with line 38 oppression, fraud, or malice, a civil penalty of treble the amount line 39 by which any payment demanded, accepted, received, or retained line 40 exceeds the maximum allowable rent.
95 — 21 — SB 567
line 1 (2)  A local government within whose jurisdiction the residential line 2 real property is located shall have the authority to do both of the line 3 following:
line 4 (A)  Enforce the provisions of this section.
line 5 (B)  Bring actions for injunctive relief on behalf of the city or line 6 county or on behalf of tenants seeking compliance by landlords line 7 with this section.
line 8 (3)  In an action pursuant to this subdivision for injunctive relief, line 9 it shall be presumed that a tenant suffers irreparable harm through line 10 violation of this section.
line 11 (4)  An action pursuant to this subdivision shall not be brought line 12 after the date that is three years from the date on which the cause line 13 of action accrued.
line 14 (m)
line 15 (l)  Any waiver of the rights under this section shall be void as line 16 contrary to public policy.
line 17 (n)
line 18 (m)  This section shall remain in effect until January 1, 2030, line 19 and as of that date is repealed.
line 20 (o)
line 21 (n)  (1)  The Legislature finds and declares that the unique line 22 circumstances of the current housing crisis require a statewide line 23 response to address rent gouging by establishing statewide line 24 limitations on gross rental rate increases.
line 25 (2)  It is the intent of the Legislature that this section should line 26 apply only for the limited time needed to address the current line 27 statewide housing crisis, as described in paragraph (1). This section line 28 is not intended to expand or limit the authority of local line 29 governments to establish local policies regulating rents consistent line 30 with Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section 1954.50), nor is it a line 31 statement regarding the appropriate, allowable rental rate increase line 32 when a local government adopts a policy regulating rent that is line 33 otherwise consistent with Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section line 34 1954.50).
line 35 (3)  Nothing in this section authorizes a local government to line 36 establish limitations on any rental rate increases not otherwise line 37 permissible under Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section 1954.50), line 38 or affects the existing authority of a local government to adopt or line 39 maintain rent controls or price controls consistent with that chapter. 95 SB 567 — 22 —
line 1 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 2 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 3 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 4 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or line 5 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 6 17556 of the Government Code.

O
95 — 23 — SB 567
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-364, Version: 1
2023-2024 Prioritization of Traffic Calming Projects
Approve a Resolution approving the proposed neighborhood traffic calming project prioritization list for fiscal year 2023-2024.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/8/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 13, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS P.E., L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ANDREW EASTERLING, TRAFFIC ENGINEER
TITLE: 2023-2024 PRIORITIZATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECTS RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve the proposed neighborhood traffic calming project prioritization list for fiscal year 2023-2024.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Numerous requests for traffic calming projects have exceeded City’s budgeted resources to respond to and provide traffic calming solutions for all the neighborhoods currently petitioning for projects. City staff evaluated and ranked traffic calming request using the Council approved prioritization criteria. The Traffic and Transportation Commission reviewed the draft prioritization ranking and modified the traffic calming project prioritization list for fiscal year 2023-2024. It is recommended City Council approve the proposed neighborhood traffic calming project prioritization list for fiscal year 2023-2024.

BACKGROUND:

The City receives numerous complaints and requests from residents regarding neighborhood traffic related issues. Many residential concerns relate to driver behavior in the form of speeding or cutthrough traffic on residential streets.

In 2009, the City of Salinas adopted the Neighborhood Traffic Management Programs to respond to residents’ requests to reduce the speed of vehicles and discourage cut-through traffic on residential streets. With the success and community support for the first complete traffic calming projects on Rosarita Drive and Little River Drive, requests for traffic calming projects began rapidly increasing. City staff evaluate requests as they are received but traffic calming projects are now backlogged due to limited time and budgetary resources. In 2017, staff recommended the adoption of a priority rating system based on fair and impartial methodologies to deliver projects based on identified needs and benefits. The recommended prioritization criteria was approved by City Council with Traffic and Transportation Commission support.

Page | 2
Staff estimates the average cost of a neighborhood traffic calming project typically ranges $70,000 to $150,000 depending on the size and complexity of the project. The project can take several months of community meetings with additional time for a voting period before advancing to implementation. The 2022-2023 budget for traffic calming projects was $435,000, which is being distributed to four neighborhood traffic calming projects which include West Acacia Street, Paseo Grande, Iverson Street, and Victor Street. If there are remaining funds the City will work with the next neighborhood from the 2022-2023 prioritized traffic calming project list. Staff will continue working on the next highest priority until funds are depleted.

As of December 31, 2022, the backlog of traffic calming projects included 25 neighborhoods.

Petitions for traffic calming projects received after December 31, 2022, will be included in the 2024-2025 prioritization report once traffic data is available. Staff prioritized the traffic calming projects based on the prioritization scoring from the approved criteria and presented it to the Traffic and Transportation Commission. The Commission adjusted the Coventry Street neighborhood to third highest priority despite receiving a lower prioritization score. Staff is recommending traffic calming improvement projects to be considered in the order shown in Table 1 for fiscal year 2023- 2024 and continued on Attachment 1. Depending on the budget that the City Council allocates for traffic calming for the FY 23-24, City staff will work on the projects in the order listed in the table below until the budget is depleted. With an anticipated annual CIP budget for traffic calming of $200,000, the staff expects to be able to complete three (3) projects for FY 23-24. Once the budget gets depleted, the backlogged traffic calming petitions will be held until resources become available or until the next re-prioritization list is developed.

Table 1: Traffic Calming Prioritization
Rank Neighborhood Score
1 Rainier Drive 61
2 Nogal Drive 52
3 Coventry Street 48
4 Rochex Avenue 51
5 Chardonnay Drive 50
6 Swaner Avenue 44
7 Ranchero Drive 39
8 Calaveras Drive 39
9 Alamo Way 36
10 Santa Teresa Way 31
11 Pueblo Drive 30
12 Alameda Avenue 27
13 Paloma Avenue 24
14 Pescadero Drive 23
15 Fairview Avenue 21
16 Mimbrera Way 20
*Streets with equal scores rank the highest collision history first Page | 3
For all other neighborhoods requesting traffic calming projects, which scored less than 20 out of 100, staff recommends closing out the request. The traffic studies found that these neighborhoods have relatively low speeds, volumes and collision history when compared to other neighborhoods.

Given the abundance of traffic calming requests in the City it is reasonably foreseeable that these neighborhoods will not be prioritized for traffic calming in the foreseeable future. Therefore, staff recommends that requests for traffic calming projects that do not meet the threshold be closed and the petitioners notified.

The City developed the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, which establishes a process for a community led effort to develop the design of a traffic calming plan that is supported by the residents themselves who will be most impacted by the project once it is completed. There are several countermeasures available to help mitigate traffic issues, however, the predominate request from the community are rubberized speed cushions. Staff notes that there are other countermeasures available which can be more effective, and may have additional benefits beyond traffic calming, such as curb extensions and raised pedestrian crosswalks. However, the planning and design of traffic calming projects is a community led effort which tends to result in more rubberized speed cushions.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION:

The 2023-24 Prioritization of Traffic Calming Projects was presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its May 11, 2023 meeting. The Commission voted (6-0) to approve a motion to approve a modification of staff’s proposed neighborhood traffic calming project prioritization list for fiscal year 2023-2024, whereas the top three priorities include the Rainer Drive, Nogal Drive and Coventry Street neighborhoods. Furthermore, the Commission recommended that the City continue to keep all traffic calming petitions active and continue to collect data for neighborhoods with low traffic volumes and speeds which received a low priority score. However, continuing to monitor neighborhoods which are unlikely to rank high requires additional resources and funds to carry on. These operating costs will limit available traffic calming funds and consequently staff estimates the City may only be able to deliver two projects if all neighborhoods carry forward next fiscal year. Staff recommends that neighborhoods with scores less than 20 be closed so that operating funds can be allocated towards delivering projects.

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.

Page | 4
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The 2023-2024 Prioritization of Traffic Calming Projects supports the Council goal of “Effective and Culturally Responsive Government”.

The City developed the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to respond to residents’ concerns regarding traffic safety. Through before and after studies, the City has determined that the neighborhood traffic calming projects have some effect to lower traffic speeds and volumes.

However, the City also completed a comprehensive 10-year collision analysis, the Vision Zero Action Plan, which reveals that very few traffic collisions occur on residential streets. The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program may help respond to residential requests, but the program has little effect to support the City Council’s goal of “Public Safety”.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There will be no additional impact to the General Fund. Based on the FY 2023-2024 CIP budget for Traffic Calming, staff will work on the neighborhoods from the above table until the budget is depleted. Once the allotted budget has been depleted, the backlogged traffic calming petitions will be held until resources become available or until the next re-prioritization recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Master List Attachment 2: Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheets Attachment 3: Neighborhood Traffic Studies
Attachment 4: Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual RESOLUTION No. _______ (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT PRIORITIZATION LIST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 WHEREAS, numerous requests for traffic calming projects have exceeded City’s budgeted resources to respond to and provide traffic calming solutions for all the neighborhoods currently petitioning for projects; and
WHEREAS, City staff evaluated and ranked traffic calming request using the Council approved prioritization criteria; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic and Transportation Commission reviewed the draft prioritization ranking and modified the traffic calming project prioritization list for fiscal year 2023-2024; and
WHEREAS, the Council may choose to recommend changes to the neighborhood traffic calming project prioritization list for fiscal year 2023-2024; 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 the neighborhood traffic calming project prioritization list for fiscal year 2023-2024.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of June 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

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

Attachment 1: Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Master List Rank Neighborhood Score
1 Rainier Drive 61
2 Nogal Drive 52
3 Coventry Street 48
4 Rochex Avenue 51
5 Chardonnay Drive 50
6 Swaner Avenue 44
7 Ranchero Drive 39
8 Calaveras Drive 39
9 Alamo Way 36
10 Santa Teresa Way 31
11 Pueblo Drive 30
12 Alameda Avenue 27
13 Paloma Avenue 24
14 Pescadero Drive 23
15 Fairview Avenue 21
16 Mimbrera Way 20
17 Hartford Street 18
18 Carmelita Drive 16
19 Beverly Drive 14
20 Sharon Drive 10
21 Florence Place 9
22 Carol Drive 8
23 Barbara Place 5
24 Jean Avenue 4
25 Harryette Drive 1
*Streets with equal scores rank the highest collision history first Note: The Coventry Street neighborhood was recommended as the third highest priority by the Traffic and Transportation Commission, despite receiving a lower prioritization score, and subsequent scores were adjusted accordingly.

STREET:

FROM SHIRES WAY TO NATIVIDAD ROAD
STAFF
DATE APRIL 4-6, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 2,308 ADT 16
2 32 MPH 14
3 4 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
1 Each
5 4 /20 4
TOTAL SCORE 61
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Rainer Dr\05 - FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 15 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
12 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

RAINIER DRIVE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM LAS CASITAS DRIVE TO FREEDOM PARKWAY
STAFF
DATE MAY 10-12, 2022

CATEGORY POINTS
1 2,354 ADT 0
2 37 MPH 20
3 5 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
1 Each
5 12 /20 12
TOTAL SCORE 52
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\Nogal Drive\06 - FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

NOGAL DRIVE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Collector Facility
Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile
5 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
15 STREET:

FROM NORTH MAIN STREET TO CRESCENT WAY
STAFF
DATE MARCH 21-23, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 930 ADT 0
2 29 MPH 8
3 6 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
1 Each
5 10 /20 10
TOTAL SCORE 51
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Rochex Avenue\05 - FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 15 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
18 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

ROCHEX AVENUE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM MCKINNON STREET TO CROMWELL DRIVE
STAFF
DATE APRIL 4-6, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 2,481 ADT 20
2 45 MPH 20
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
1 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 50
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Chardonnay Dr\05 - FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

CHARDONNAY DRIVE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile
5 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 STREET:

FROM GLENDORA WAY TO INGLEWOOD STREET
STAFF
DATE JANUARY 24-26, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 483 ADT 0
2 40 MPH 20
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
2 Each
0 Each
5 8 /20 8
TOTAL SCORE 48
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Coventry Street\05 - FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 20 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

COVENTRY STREET
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM SANTA RITA STREET TO VAN BUREN AVENUE
STAFF
DATE MARCH 21-23, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 681 ADT 0
2 32 MPH 14
3 3 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
0 Each
5 11 /20 11
TOTAL SCORE 44
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\Swaner Ave\08- FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 10 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
9 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

SWANER AVENUE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM LAS CASITAS DRIVE TO LA HONDA COURT
STAFF
DATE MARCH 21-23, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 719 ADT 0
2 34 MPH 18
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
0 Each
5 8 /20 8
TOTAL SCORE 39
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\[Prioritization Score.xlsx]Sheet1 10 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
3 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

RANCHERO DRIVE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM EL DORADO DRVE TO YREKA DRIVE
STAFF
DATE JULY 14-15, 2021

CATEGORY POINTS
1 2,679 ADT 20
2 30 MPH 10
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
1 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 39
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\Calaveras Dr\07 - FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

CALAVERAS DRIVE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile
5 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
3 STREET:

FROM GARNER AVENUE TO LAS CASITAS DRIVE
STAFF
DATE NOVEMBER 1-3, 2022

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,884 ADT 8
2 32 MPH 14
3 3 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 36
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Alamo Way\05-FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

ALAMO WAY
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile
0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
9 STREET:

FROM GRANADA AVENUE TO EAST LAUREL DRIVE
STAFF
DATE APRIL 26-28, 2022

CATEGORY POINTS
1 801 ADT 0
2 32 MPH 14
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
0 Each
5 4 /20 4
TOTAL SCORE 31
10 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
3 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

SANTA TERESA WAY
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM ADAMS STREET TO NORTH FIRST STREET
STAFF
DATE MARCH 7-9, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 540 ADT 0
2 36 MPH 20
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 10 /20 10
TOTAL SCORE 30
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Pueblo Drive\05 - FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

PUEBLO DRIVE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM ABBOTT STREET TO EAST ROMIE LANE
STAFF
DATE MARCH 28-30, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,394 ADT 0
2 31 MPH 12
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 15 /20 15
TOTAL SCORE 27
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Alameda Ave\05 - FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

ALAMEDA AVENUE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Collector Facility
STREET:

FROM QUILLA STREET TO MARGARET STREET
STAFF
DATE JANUARY 24-26, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,370 ADT 0
2 33 MPH 16
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 24
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Paloma Ave\05 - FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
3 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

PALOMA AVENUE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM LOS COCHES AVENUE TO INGLEWOOD STREET
STAFF
DATE MARCH 7-9, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 845 ADT 0
2 29 MPH 8
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
0 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 23
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Pescadero Dr\05-FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

PESCADERO DRIVE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile
10 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 STREET:

FROM SHARON DRIVE TO CAROL DRIVE
STAFF
DATE MARCH 7-9, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,409 ADT 0
2 32 MPH 14
3 2 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 21
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Fairview Ave\05-FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

FAIRVIEW AVENUE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile
0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
6 STREET:

FROM NOGAL DRIVE TO RIDER AVENUE
STAFF
DATE JANUARY 24-26, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 615 ADT 0
2 27 MPH 4
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
1 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 20
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Mimbrera Way\05-FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

MIMBRERA WAY
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile
15 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 STREET:

FROM COVENTRY STREET TO INGLEWOOD STREET
STAFF
DATE MARCH 7-9, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 129 ADT 0
2 22 MPH 0
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
0 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 18
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Hartford Street\05 - FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 10 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
3 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

HARTFORD STREET
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM WEST ALISAL STREET TO PALMA DRIVE
STAFF
DATE APRIL 4-6, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 324 ADT 0
2 28 MPH 6
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
1 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 16
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Carmelita Dr\05-FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 5 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

CARMELITA DRIVE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM FAIRVIEW AVENUE TO FLORENCE PLACE
STAFF
DATE FEBRUARY 21-23, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 244 ADT 0
2 28 MPH 6
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 14
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Beverly Dr\05-FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
3 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

BEVERLY DRIVE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM BARBARA PLACE TO FAIRVIEW AVENUE
STAFF
DATE FEBRUARY 21-23, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 405 ADT 0
2 23 MPH 0
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 10 /20 10
TOTAL SCORE 10
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Sharon Dr\05-FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

SHARON DRIVE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM FAIRVIEW AVENUE TO BEVERLY DRIVE
STAFF
DATE FEBRUARY 21-23, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 225 ADT 0
2 29 MPH 8
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 9
0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

FLORENCE PLACE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM FLORENCE PLACE TO FAIRVIEW AVENUE
STAFF
DATE MARCH 7-9, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 83 ADT 0
2 22 MPH 0
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 8 /20 8
TOTAL SCORE 8
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Carol Dr\05-FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

CAROL DRIVE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile
0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 STREET:

FROM FAIRVIEW AVENUE TO BEVERLY DRIVE
STAFF
DATE FEBRUARY 21-23, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 135 ADT 0
2 27 MPH 4
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 5
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Barbara Pl\05-FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

BARBARA PLACE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM SHARON DRIVE TO CAROL DRIVE
STAFF
DATE MARCH 28-30, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 102 ADT 0
2 17 MPH 0
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 4
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Jean Ave\05-FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
3 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile

JEAN AVENUE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM FAIRVIEW AVENUE TO CAROL DRIVE
STAFF
DATE MARCH 7-9, 2023

CATEGORY POINTS
1 147 ADT 0
2 19 MPH 0
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 1
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\01- FY 23-24 Petitions\Harryette Dr\05-FY 23-24 Prioritization Draft\[FY 23-24 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

HARRYETTE DRIVE
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. For typical residential streets, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points. Special consideration is given to a local collector facility. A Local Collector (Residential Type II) roadways are designed with a larger cross-section and may serve as a bus route, and typically has a capacity of 5,000 average trips per day. For typical collector facilities, the traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day exceeding 2,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Measure the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels that speed or below. Collected speeds should only be measured under conditions of free flow and should omit data observed from following vehicles or interrupted flow. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The traffic calming score for speed shall be determined as 2 point for mile per hour measured from the 85th percentile speed over the posted (25mph) speed limit with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

AWDT
Facility Residential street
Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Proximity to designated schools and pedestrian generators (e.g. parks, libraries, and other public facilities) within 500 feet of the roadway section. The traffic calming score should add 10 points for every school and 5 points for every additional pedestrian generator with in vicinity of the study area with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Presence of sight distance issues, changes in vertical or horizontal curvature, corner sight considerations, presence of sidewalks, uncontrolled crosswalks and other unusual conditions or characteristics not aforementioned.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
Score
85th Percentile
0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 RAINIER DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 4-6, 2023 (WEEKDAY)

LINWOOD DR

LASSEN AVE

TAMPICO AVE

RAMONA AVE RAINIER DR

TETON AVE

MARIN AVE

NICHOLS AVE

MODOC AVE

PARSONS AVE

SHIRES WY

AMADOR CIR
NATIVIDAD RD 1019 853 885 1087 951 1221 947 928 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 25 MPH WB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 26 MPH ADT: 1874 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 29 MPH WB: 29 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 2308 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 30 MPH WB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 1836 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 33 MPH WB: 32 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 1872 0 400' 800' SCALE: 1"=400'

SA L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A N
NOGAL DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MAY 10-12, 2022 (WEEKDAY)

MIMBRERA WAY

MANZANO WAY

PACANA CIR

YUCATAN WAY NATIVIDAD CREEK PARK

FREEDOM PKWY
AMARILLO WAY 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 39 MPH WB: 35 MPH COMBINED: 37 MPH ADT: 1768 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 34 MPH WB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 2354 239 189 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 32 MPH WB: 29 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 429 NOGAL DR NOGAL CIR 2ND ST
0 300' 600' SCALE: 1"= 300'
LAS CASITAS DR 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 26 MPH WB: 29 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 954 839 929 1186
1168
498
456

SA L I NA C
S

A L I F O RNI A N CAOBA WAY
ROCHEX AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 21-23, 2023 (WEEKDAY)

ROCHEX AVE

CLAREMONT ST

HUNTINGTON ST
N 3RD ST 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 19 MPH WB: 21 MPH COMBINED: 20 MPH ADT: 930 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 22 MPH WB: 22 MPH COMBINED: 22 MPH ADT: 920 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 27 MPH WB: 25 MPH COMBINED: 26 MPH N 4TH ST ADT: 756
TYLER ST W CURTIS ST 340 270 430 327 559 361
509
421 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 32 MPH WB: 25 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 610 0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"=250'

SA L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A N

CRESCENT WY

N MAIN ST

PARKSIDE ST

CHARDONNAY DR

MCKINNON ST

GAMAY WY

CROMWELL DR WINDSOR ST

CABERNET WY

ZINFANDEL WY
MERLOT WY CHARDONNAY DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 4-6, 2023 (WEEKDAY) 461 533 522539 722 838 11801302 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 30 MPH WB: 29 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 2481 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 33 MPH WB: 35 MPH COMBINED: 34 MPH ADT: 1560 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 48 MPH WB: 43 MPH COMBINED: 45 MPH ADT: 1061 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 30 MPH WB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 994 0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"=250' S A L I NA SC A L I F OR NI A N

COVENTRY ST HARTFORD ST

PORTSMOUTH WY

DANBURY ST
RIVERTON WAY 150 184 244 238 199 203 COVENTRY STREET TRAFFIC STUDY JANUARY 24-26, 2023 (WEEKDAY) 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 38 MPH WB: 42 MPH COMBINED: 40 MPH ADT: 334 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 33 MPH WB: 31 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 483 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 27 MPH WB:24 MPH COMBINED: 26 MPH ADT: 402

INGLEWOOD ST
GLENDORA WAY 0 200' 400' SCALE: 1"= 200' S A L I NA SC A L I F O RNI A N HYANNIS CIR

SWANER AVE

NORTHRIDGE DR

SANTA RITA ST

NORTHRIDGE DR

SAN JUAN GRADE RD

VAN BUREN AVE
JACKSON ST 0 200' 400' SCALE: 1"=200' SWANER AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 21-23, 2023 (WEEKDAY) 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 32 MPH WB: 31 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 667 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 23 MPH WB: 32 MPH COMBINED: 27 MPH ADT: 564 347 321 252 290 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 31 MPH WB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 681 PIERCE ST 391 313 S A L I NA SC A L I F OR NI A N
349 270 290 384 407 335 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 26 MPH WB: 25 MPH COMBINED: 25 MPH ADT: 619 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 33 MPH SB: 34 MPH COMBINED: 34 MPH ADT: 719 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 31 MPH WB: 27 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 697 RANCHERO DR

FRESA PL

EBANO PL
LAS CASITAS DR RANCHERO DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 21-23, 2023 (WEEKDAY) 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150' S A L I NA SC A L I F OR NI A N LA HONDA CT

CALAVERAS DR

EL DORADO DR

SISKIYOU DR

UKIAH WAY

CHICO WAY

KLAMATH DR YREKA DR LOS COCHES AVE S A L I NA SC A L I F ORNI A N LESLIE DR 1303 1376 550 532 240 223 0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"= 250' CALAVERAS DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY JULY 14-15, 2021 (WEEKDAY) 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 30 MPH WB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 2679 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 30 MPH WB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 1082 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 28 MPH WB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 463

GARNER AVE

LA HONDA CT

LAS CASITAS DR

PINO WAY
LA HONDA CT ALAMO WAY TRAFFIC STUDY NOVEMBER 1-3, 2022 (WEEKDAY) ALAMO WY 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 25 MPH WB: 27 MPH COMBINED: 26 MPH ADT: 17427251018 8551029 781 85TH PERCENTILE: 668 EB: 32 MPH WB: 31 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 1884 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 31 MPH WB: 31 MPH COMBINED: 31 MPH ADT: 1449 0 200' 400' SCALE: 1"= 200' S A L I NA SC A L I F O RNI A N SANTA TERESA WAY TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 28-30, 2023 (WEEKDAY)

ROSARITA DR
GRANADA AVE SANTA TERESA WAY 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 30 MPH WB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 464 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 26 MPH WB: 24 MPH COMBINED: 25 MPH ADT: 801446 239 243

MADONNA DR
0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"= 150' 251 213 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 31 MPH WB: 33 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 482

S A L I NA S
C A L I FOR NI A N 355 E LAUREL DR
PUEBLO DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 7-9, 2023 (WEEKDAY) PUEBLO DR

MOHAWK AVE

W CURTIS ST CRESCENT WAY

N FIRST ST
268 268
211
246 272
172 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 28 MPH EB: 24 MPH COMBINED: 26 MPH ADT: 383 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 34 MPH EB: 34 MPH COMBINED: 34 MPH ADT: 540 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 36 MPH EB: 36 MPH COMBINED: 36 MPH ADT: 513

ADAMS ST
0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"= 250'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A N
552 819 668 618 552 819 311 402 552 819 621 706 819 691552 703 ALAMEDA AVE

E ROMIE LN

E ACACIA ST

SANTA LUCIA AVE
ABBOTT ST ALAMEDA AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 28-30, 2023 (WEEKDAY) 85TH PERCENTILE NB:33 MPH SB:30 MPH COMBINED: 31 MPH ADT: 1286 85TH PERCENTILE NB: 22 MPH SB: 18 MPH COMBINED: 20 MPH ADT: 713 85TH PERCENTILE NB: 31 MPH SB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 31 MPH ADT: 1327 85TH PERCENTILE NB: 26 MPH SB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 27 MPH ADT: 1394

HAWTHORNE ST

EL PASO PI
MAPLEWOOD DR GROVE ST 0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"=250' S A L I NA SC A L I F ORN AI N PALOMA AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY JANUARY 24-26, 2023 (WEEKDAY)

QUILLA ST

E MARKET ST

PALOMA AVE

E ALISAL ST

SYCAMORE RD

MIAMI ST
329
655
552
819
552
819
240
213 240
213
240
384240
384 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 25 MPH WB: 23 MPH COMBINED: 24 MPH ADT: 980 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 27 MPH WB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 1370 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 34 MPH WB: 33 MPH COMBINED: 33 MPH ADT: 624 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 26 MPH WB: 32MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 453

MARGARET ST
0 450' 900' SCALE: 1"=450'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A N
PESCADERO DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 7-9, 2023 (WEEKDAY)

SAUCITO AVE
SAUSAL DR PESCADERO DR 85TH PERCENTILE: SB: 28 MPH NB: 26 MPH COMBINED: 27 MPH ADT: 500 85TH PERCENTILE: SB: 29 MPH NB: 27 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 845 85TH PERCENTILE: SB: 24 MPH NB: 23 MPH COMBINED: 23 MPH ADT: 669 163 337 434 410 252
417
ARCADIA WY 119 163 85TH PERCENTILE: SB: 28 MPH NB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 282

COMPTON WY
0 400' 800' SCALE: 1"=400'

LOS COCHES AVE

INGLEWOOD ST

EL SUR AVE

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR N AI N
FAIRVIEW AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 7-9, 2023 (WEEKDAY) FAIRVIEW AVE

BARBARA PL
FLORENCE PL 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 32 MPH EB: 32 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 788 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 26 MPH EB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 27 MPH ADT:1409

SHARON DR

HARRYETTE DR
CAROL DR JEAN AVE 380 408 690 719
0 125' 250' SCALE: 1"= 125'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR NI A N
MIMBRERA WAY TRAFFIC STUDY JANUARY 24-26, 2023 (WEEKDAY) MIMBRERA WY

RIDER AVE

MANZANO CIR
NOGAL DR 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 26 MPH SB: 29 MPH COMBINED: 27 MPH ADT: 615 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 24 MPH SB: 24 MPH COMBINED: 24 MPH ADT: 423 143 330 285

MIMBRERA CIR

S A L I NA S
L A C
I F ORNI A N SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40' 80' 280

DANBURY ST

RIVERTON WY

INGLEWOOD ST
PORTSMOUTH WY COVENTRY ST HARTFORD STREET TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 7-9, 2023 (WEEKDAY) 69 60 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 22 MPH EB: 23 MPH COMBINED: 22 MPH ADT : 100 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 20 MPH EB: 21 MPH COMBINED: 21 MPH ADT: 106 85TH PERCENTILE: NB:19 MPH SB:19 MPH COMBINED: 19 MPH ADT : 129 HARTFORD ST SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40' 80' S A L I NA SC A L I F ORNI A N 62 43 72 29 PALMA DR W ALISAL ST CARMELITA DR CARMELITA DR 177 95 147 90 SIERRA MADRE DR CARMELITA DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 4-6, 2023 (WEEKDAY) 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 28 MPH WB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 324 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 26 MPH SB: 24 MPH COMBINED: 25 MPH ADT: 185 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150' S A L I NA SC A L I F ORNI A N BEVERLY DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY FEBRUARY 21-23, 2023 (WEEKDAY)

FLORENCE PL

BEVERLY DR

SHARON DR FAIRVIEW AVE
48 70
83 94
131
113 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 23 MPH EB: 25 MPH COMBINED: 24 MPH ADT: 118 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 22 MPH EB: 22 MPH COMBINED: 22 MPH ADT: 177 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 28 MPH SB: 27 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 244

BARBARA PL

CAROL DR
0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR NI A N
SHARON DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY FEBRUARY 21-23, 2023 (WEEKDAY) BEVERLY DR SHARON DR

FAIRVIEW AVE

JEAN AVE
63 79 196 209
40 58 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 21 MPH SB: 21 MPH COMBINED: 21 MPH ADT: 141 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 24 MPH SB: 23 MPH COMBINED: 23 MPH ADT: 405 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 21 MPH SB: 24 MPH COMBINED: 22 MPH ADT: 98 0 100' 200' SCALE: 1"= 100'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR NI A N BARBARA PL
FLORENCE PLACE TRAFFIC STUDY FEBRUARY 21-23, 2023 (WEEKDAY) FLORENCE PL

FAIRVIEW AVE
BEVERLY DR 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 29 MPH SB: 29 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 225 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 28 MPH SB: 22 MPH COMBINED: 25 MPH ADT: 96

CAROL DR
0 100' 200' SCALE: 1"= 100' 114 111 56 40

S A L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A N
CAROL DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 7-9, 2023 (WEEKDAY)

FAIRVIEW AVE

HARRYETTE DR
FLORENCE PL CAROL DR 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 23 MPH SB: 22 MPH COMBINED: 22 MPH ADT: 80 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 21 MPH WB: 19 MPH COMBINED: 20 MPH ADT: 83 54 29 52 28
0 100' 200' SCALE: 1"= 100'

S A L I NA S
A C

L I F OR NI A N
72 59 6867 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 28 MPH SB: 27 MPH COMBINED: 27 MPH ADT: 131 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 26 MPH SB: 24 MPH COMBINED: 25 MPH ADT: 135 BARBARA PLACE TRAFFIC STUDY FEBRUARY 21-23, 2023 (WEEKDAY) BEVERLY DR BARBARA PL FAIRVIEW AVE FLORENCE PL SHARON DR 0 100' 200' SCALE: 1"= 100' S A L I NA SC A L I F ORNI A N JEAN AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 28-30, 2023 (WEEKDAY) JEAN AVE FAIRVIEW AVE CAROL AVE 27 75 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 17 MPH EB: 18 MPH COMBINED: 17 MPH ADT: 102

SHARON DR
0 100' 200' SCALE: 1"= 100'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR NIA N
HARRYETTE DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 7-9, 2023 (WEEKDAY) HARRYETTE DR

FAIRVIEW AVE
CAROL DR 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 19 MPH SB: 19 MPH COMBINED: 19 MPH ADT: 14776 71 0 70' 140' SCALE: 1"=70'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A N

F EHR & PEERS

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O N S U L T A N T S
Final Report
City of Salinas
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
160 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 675
San Jose, CA 95113
SJ07-905
November 2008
& P L A N N I N G

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N
Final Report
City of Salinas
Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program
Prepared For:

City of Salinas
Prepared By:

Fehr & Peers
November 2008
SJ07-905

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................1 Purpose...................................................................................................................................................1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................1 NTMP Development................................................................................................................................2 Funding ...................................................................................................................................................3 How To Use This Document ...................................................................................................................3 Who to Contact .......................................................................................................................................3

2. Process Framework..............................................................................................................................5 Plan Initiation...........................................................................................................................................5 Plan Development...................................................................................................................................9 Neighborhood Support..........................................................................................................................11 Plan Implementation .............................................................................................................................13 Process for Removal.............................................................................................................................14

3. Toolbox ................................................................................................................................................16 Non-Physical Devices ...........................................................................................................................17 Speed Control – Narrowing Devices.....................................................................................................23 Speed Control – Horizontal Devices.....................................................................................................28 Speed Control – Vertical Devices .........................................................................................................34 Volume Control – Devices ....................................................................................................................43

4. Toolbox Guidelines.............................................................................................................................50 Guidelines .............................................................................................................................................50 Effectiveness Comparison ....................................................................................................................51 Placing the Neighborhood Traffic Management Measures...................................................................51

5. New Development Guidelines............................................................................................................59 Suggested Development Review Process............................................................................................59 Development Review Practices ............................................................................................................61 Designing Street Networks ...................................................................................................................61 Designing for Appropriate Speeds ........................................................................................................62 Designing for Local Traffic ....................................................................................................................63 Pedestrian/Vehicle Conflict Areas.........................................................................................................63 Developing a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan........................................................................64 Appendix A – Design Guidelines ...........................................................................................................A-1 Speed Control – Vertical Measures ....................................................................................................A-1 Horizontal Deflection Measures ..........................................................................................................A-3 Narrowing Measures...........................................................................................................................A-4 Landscaping........................................................................................................................................ A-5 Signage and Striping...........................................................................................................................A-6 Combined Measures...........................................................................................................................A-6 Appendix B – Standard Traffic Calming Templates.............................................................................B-1 Appendix C – City of Salinas Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Devises Policy ...............................C-1 Appendix D – City of Salinas Primary Fire Response Routes............................................................D-1

LIST OF TABLES

SECTION PAGE
Table 1 Applicability of Treatments by Traffic Related Concern........................................................52 Table 2 Applicability of Treatments by Location ................................................................................53 Table 3 Applicability by Street Type...................................................................................................54 Table 4 Quantitative Impacts of Neighborhood Traffic Management Measures ...............................56

LIST OF FIGURES

SECTION PAGE
Figure 1 NTMP Process Framework...........................................................................................................6 Figure 2 NTMP Process For Removal ......................................................................................................15 Figure 3 Estimating Midpoint Speed .........................................................................................................57 Figure 4 New Development Review Process............................................................................................60 Figure 5 Correlation Between Pavement Width, Unimpeded Street Length and Speed..........................63 Figure A-1 Vertical Measure Ramp Profiles ............................................................................................... A-1 Figure A-2 Traffic circles at T-Intersections................................................................................................ A-4 Figure A-3 Common Warning Signs ........................................................................................................... A-7 Figure B-1A Speed Hump – Parabolic Profile............................................................................................... B-2 Figure B-1B Speed Hump – Sinusoidal Profile ............................................................................................. B-3 Figure B-2 Speed Lump.............................................................................................................................. B-4 Figure B-3 Speed Table.............................................................................................................................. B-5 Figure B-4 Raised Crosswalk ..................................................................................................................... B-6 Figure B-5 Raised Intersection ................................................................................................................... B-7 Figure B-6 Vertical Device – Advance Warning Markings.......................................................................... B-8 Figure B-7 Neckdown/Bulbout – Intersection ............................................................................................. B-9 Figure B-8 Neckdown/Bulbout – Midblock................................................................................................ B-10 Figure B-9 Center Island Narrowing ......................................................................................................... B-11 Figure B-10 Two-lane Choker..................................................................................................................... B-12 Figure B-11 Traffic Circle............................................................................................................................ B-13 Figure B-12 Chicane................................................................................................................................... B-14 Figure B-13 Partial Closure......................................................................................................................... B-15 Figure B-14 Diagonal Diverter .................................................................................................................... B-16 Figure B-15 Median Barrier......................................................................................................................... B-17 Figure B-16 Forced Turn Island.................................................................................................................. B-18 Figure D-1 City of Salinas Primary Fire Response Routes......................................................................... D-2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Robert Russell, P.E. City Deputy/Engineer City Manager, City of Salinas James Serrano, Transportation Planner, Development and Engineering Services Department, City of Salinas Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 1
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

1. INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE
Growth in traffic volumes in Salinas and the broader region has increased the frequency and severity of traffic-related issues on neighborhood streets. Numerous agencies across the nation have confronted these problems using a proven process and tools to address both safety and quality-of-life concerns. The process is known as a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP), which uses traffic calming tools and techniques.

The purpose of this document is to define a NTMP that is customized to the needs and unique characteristics of Salinas residential streets.

OVERVIEW
As defined in an ITE Journal article, “[t]raffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for nonmotorized street users.”1 This definition suggests that the negative effects of vehicle speeds and/or excessive traffic volumes on neighborhood streets can diminish the residential quality of life. While residential life “quality” is subjective, vehicle speeds and traffic volumes can be quantified and compared against adopted community or industry standards. Experiences reinforce this notion as some community residents embrace traffic calming, while others are not so willing to accept the inconveniences of “managed traffic” in lieu of a perceived improvement in residential quality of life.

With this in mind, the Development and Engineering Services (DES) Department has requested assistance with preparation of a comprehensive program that includes a systematic approach to handling neighborhood traffic requests, and applying the most appropriate traffic calming measures for the situation at hand. The NTMP will also engage community residents during the development of individual neighborhood traffic calming plans and determine local support for the plan through neighborhood participation.

The process defined herein is intended solely for use on public streets and is not applicable to non-City maintained roadways (i.e., private roads, or county roadways). However, use of this manual as a guideline for non-City roadways, will require oversight by the Fire Department on the planning, design, and implementation of such features. Eligible City maintained roadways (i.e., public roads) include two-lane local, collector, and some minor arterials located within the City limits.

The terms “local” and “collector” streets refer to the functional classification that denotes a specific level in the transportation network hierarchy and specifies the design according to City of Salinas standards. While the streets may have been designed for a particular purpose, they may function differently in the field than intended. Therefore, it may be difficult to differentiate between the two classifications. Following is a narrative description of each roadway classification:
• Local Streets provide direct access to residential properties and facilitate short neighborhood trips.

Typical local street features include:
− Two-lane 24- to 34-foot travel way width (curb face to curb face) 1 Lockwood, I.M., “ITE Traffic Calming Definition.” ITE Journal, Vol. 67, July 1997, pp. 22-24.

Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 2
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

− Serves fewer than 75 residential units on a through cul-de-sac or street • Collector Streets are secondary roads that connect motorists from surrounding local streets to arterial roadways and freeways and facilitate intermediate trip lengths. Typical collector street features include:
− 34- to 40-foot travel way
− Connects local streets to arterials
− May or may not include front-on housing
The underpinnings of the NTMP are based on a combination of parallel strategies, known collectively as the “Three E’s”:
• Education – Providing information and raising awareness; targeting drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists about the safest and best ways to share the road.
• Engineering – Physical measures constructed to lower speeds, improve safety, or otherwise reduce the impacts of automobiles, on residents and other transportation modes. • Enforcement – Targeted enforcement by the City of Salinas Police Department to reinforce the emphasis on education and engineering aspects of the program.

This document focuses on the engineering aspects of neighborhood traffic calming, though education and enforcement play an important role in any engineering strategy. This document and informational flyers provide education, while the City of Salinas Police Department, Monterey County Sheriff Department, and California Highway Patrol conduct targeted speed enforcement. Although targeted speed enforcement provides a positive influence on neighborhood streets, the demand for this service can easily outstrip the resources of any enforcement agency. Therefore, neighborhood traffic calming is a viable alternative that is typically self-enforcing and minimizes operating costs.

This program also considers the roadway network and design of new developments. Developers, with guidance from DES staff, can reduce the need for future traffic calming by designing new streets that discourage speeding and cut-through traffic. To supplement these design principles, developers can incorporate traffic calming concepts and measures as part of the initial development.

NTMP DEVELOPMENT
This manual was adapted to meet the needs of the City of Salinas. An advisory committee composed of representatives from City of Salinas Planning, Engineering, and Traffic Divisions; Salinas Fire Districts, Salinas Police Department; Monterey Salinas Transit; City Council Districts, and local agencies and interested parties convened to review material and provide input on specific aspects of the NTMP process framework and toolbox.

The material presented to the TAC was based on a 2004 national survey conducted of 21 leading jurisdictions’ traffic calming practices. The survey provided insight into the evolution of the traffic calming field since the last in-depth report2
almost a decade ago. The various approaches, policies, and uses of traffic 2 Ewing, R. Traffic Calming State-of-the-Practice. Washington, D.C., USA: Institute of Transportation Engineers /Federal Highway Administration, 1999.

Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 3
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
calming devices reported in this survey provided a menu of alternatives to develop a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program unique to the City of Salinas.

FUNDING
Funding for the Salinas NTMP will likely come from the City’s limited street funding, which will compete annually for funding amongst other programs. Funding will go towards staff time (operating cost) and construction costs (capital cost) of standard devices. As DES identifies needs in the next fiscal budget, City staff and decision-makers may recognize that other funding sources may be necessary to maintain the program or meet the anticipated demand. To offset the public demand and stretch the funding, residents will be required to contribute 75 percent of the costs for speed humps (or other vertical devices). Additional cost sharing may be necessary depending on annual funding and level of public demand. The need and proportional share to residents will be determined annually.

In the absence of funding or to expedite treatment, residents may elect to fund a local traffic calming plan.

The neighborhood must prove the financial ability to fund 100 percent of the anticipated costs, which include plan development, engineering drawings, and construction. Upon proof of financial ability, DES can elect to authorize the neighborhood’s request to develop a traffic calming plan. Regardless of resident contributions, physical measures will be implemented only if warranted through an engineering study or as part of another City sponsored project (e.g., a streetscape plan).

In addition, residents could voluntarily elect to fund aesthetic upgrades to the standard devices. Such aesthetic upgrades could include landscaping or use of decorative materials.

HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
This document provides guidelines, not rigid requirements. These guidelines are primarily intended for DES staff and residents to help develop an appropriate NTMP, and for builders and staff to create and review new subdivision plans.

This manual will likely evolve as staff and community members work through the program; and identify more efficient or different methods of implementing the program and better ways of disseminating information. DES staff may also revise the design guidelines and cost estimates to ensure updated material is presented.

WHO TO CONTACT
To find out more information about the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program or whether your street is eligible for traffic calming, please contact:
• The Traffic and Transportation Division of the Development and Engineering Services Department at (831) 758-7241 or [email protected].

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 4

HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
If you are a Resident, you should focus on the
following chapters:

Chapter 2, Process Framework, to find out how to
request traffic calming on your street and the steps
necessary to implement a traffic calming plan.

Chapter 3, Toolbox, to discover what particular traffic calming devices are available and the advantages and
disadvantages of each.

If you are an Engineer/Planner involved in the
development of a new subdivision, you should focus on
the following chapters:

Chapters 3 and 4, Toolbox and Toolbox Guidelines, to
discover what devices you can incorporate into your
development.

Chapter 5, New Development Guidelines, for techniques
to minimize the potential for future speeding and trafficrelated concerns.

DES staff members should focus on the above Chapters as well as the following appendices:

Appendix A – Design Guidelines provides recommended design features to minimize design issues once implemented.

Appendix B – Standard Traffic Calming Templates provides standard designs templates that can be easily modified to fit specific roadways.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 5

2. PROCESS FRAMEWORK
The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program is a partnership between the City and its residents.

Participation begins with the initial petition filing, continues with the development of a neighborhood traffic calming plan, then moves to the final step of determining neighborhood support. The process framework identifies the steps by which the Development and Engineering Services (DES) staff and community members interact and participate in the NTMP. Figure 1 on the following page graphically illustrates the NTMP process framework. The accompanying text below provides greater detail.

The process framework is comprised of four key elements that focus on specific tasks and conclude with the implementation of a traffic calming plan.

Each step of the
Process Framework
is numbered and
corresponds with
Figure 1.
• Plan Initiation – Is my street eligible for traffic calming consideration? • Plan Development – Who develops the traffic calming plan? • Plan Support – What are the requirements for neighborhood support? • Plan Implementation – How are the supported traffic calming measures installed?
This chapter also includes a “Process for Removal”. This process presents the framework for removal of neighborhood calming devices in the event residents wish to have certain aspects of the implemented plan removed.

PLAN INITIATION
This component describes how to initiate the NTMP and determine eligibility. 1 –Assess DES Workload and Determine Number of Areas to be Treated Before initiating a local traffic calming plan, staff will review the number of areas that can be treated in given year based on the city’s traffic calming budget and workload. This assessment is important to balance the resources of the department due to the close oversight and required level of staff involvement. 2 – Citizen Request
The process is initiated when a resident(s) submits a request to DES staff to investigate speeding, traffic volumes, or traffic-related safety concerns within their neighborhood. Requests for City-maintained streets should provide sufficient detail for staff to understand the traffic-related concern and magnitude. The action initiates the dialogue between the resident(s) and DES staff. Requests can be submitted via letter or e-mail.

Requests in writing from City Council will also initiate the process.

NTMP PROCESS FRAMEWORK
Figure 1 November 2008 SJ07-905
DES identifies number of areas that can be treated in given year based on the city's traffic calming budget and workload.

1. Plan Initiation
Citizen Request (also via City Council): Stating perceived problem and affected area via calls, e-mail, or through Web site.

Community Meeting:- Noticing to neighborhood- Overview of process- Review of issues- Define desired outcome- Tutorial by Staff- Form Neighborhood Traffic Committee (NTC)- Review annual capital budget allocation and local contributions
- Petition sent to citizens
Plan Development (3):- Identify physical traffic calming devices to treat issues according to street type, subject to device eligibility guidelines. - Review annual capital budget allocation and local contributions.- Funding commitment required- Solicit affected agency inputNeighborhood Meeting:- Notify residents of meeting- Review draft plan- Gather final input- Educate attendees on survey process- Refine plan as appropriate Determine plan
support. (4)
Level of Support required for Phase 2 or 3
devices:
- Minimum Response Rate = 50%- Minimum Approval Rate = 67%Tally Survey Results:- Staff tallies neighborhood support.- General public responses noted separately.- Identify neighborhood support for traffic calming plan and finding plan.

Design and Consultation:- Develop final designs and review with affected agencies (Fire, Police, Transit Agency, School District). - Conduct field tests of devices, as appropriate.

Construct
temporary or
permanent
devices as
appropriate (5)
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Revise as Needed (6)
Problem resolved?
(1) A response is sent to every citizen who made a request informing them of the course of action. (2) Study area to include all streets that may experience a significant change in traffic due to treatment and will generally be bounded by arterials, freeways, rivers, etc. (3) First round of plan development will focus on speed control devices, if Development and Engineering Services (DES) implementation of non-physical measures in Step 3a/3b. (4) Surveys distributed within study area. Multi Unit Dwellings' responses do not count toward the minimum response rate. Survey includes three questions: (a) Do you support the proposed plan? (b) Would you oppose a traffic calming device adjacent to your property? (c) Would you contribute to neighborhood funding of the proposed traffic calming measures? (5) Temporary devices are constructed at staff discretion based on previous experience. Temporary devices can be converted to permanent devices after 6 months of acceptable performance. (6) If non-physical and speed control devices are found to be ineffective, DES may initiate volume control plan.

2. Plan Development 3. Plan Support 4. Plan Implementation DES
Staff to
Assess Issues:

Treatment
required?
Concern warrants DES action,
such as Phase 1 non-physical
traffic calming devices,
enforcement, maintenance,
traffic operations, or other
action.

Concern warrants education,
such as the city's STREETS
SMARTS Program or
distribution of flyers.

Problem
resolved?
Pursue physical traffic calming
measures.

DES Staff Defines Study
Area (2) and Collect Initial
Traffic Data on Identified Streets
Neighborhood
Support?
No
No
Traffic concern
remedied.

Yes
DES
Conceptual
Approval & Verification
of Project
Funding
Yes
1 3
3a
3b
4 3c
56 7
8 9
10 12
16 17
18 13
2 11
Traffic and Transportation
Commission Consideration/
Recommendations to Council
City Council
Approval of Traffic Calming
and Funding Plans
No Yes
14 15
DES sends letter to citizen
indicating request is on a waiting
list for future evaluation.

Review completed.

Resident notified.(1)
No
Yes
Yes
No
Traffic concern
remedied.

Refine
plan
once
Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 7
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
3 – Assess Traffic
DES staff will review the petition and determine the appropriate course of action. Certain traffic concerns may be remedied through methods other than physical traffic calming devices (3a). For instance, staff may initially install non-physical traffic calming devices (see Chapter 3) that utilize signs and roadway striping, conduct landscaping maintenance (e.g., trees blocking a stop sign), request targeted speed enforcement by the Salinas Police Department, or provide other engineering related improvements. Additionally, DES staff may distribute or assist residents with distribution of educational flyers reminding local residents of the rules of the road and safe neighborhood driving habits (3b). Following these actions, staff will determine whether the treatments remedied the cited concern based on technical documentation (3c).

The City will send a response letter to the individual who submitted the original request, indicating the initial action City staff intends to undertake. If the non-physical traffic calming measures or other actions do not eliminate the concern, staff may recommend physical traffic calming treatments. 4 – Traffic Calming Issue
Upon receipt of the request or determination that previous non-physical traffic calming actions did not address the cited concerns, DES staff may elect to pursue a traffic calming plan with local residents. 5 – Citizen Notified of Course of Action
Staff will send a letter to those residents indicating that their request is on a waiting list for future evaluation pending available City resources. If the number of requests exceeds staff resources, staff will select requests first on a safety priority basis (i.e., locations with a higher than expected number of collisions, higher pedestrian/bicycle concentration locations such as schools, community centers, or libraries) and second on a first-come-first-served basis. The remaining locations will be placed on a waiting list.

To provide residents with another avenue for treatment, neighborhoods can elect to fund the analysis and construction of traffic calming devices to consider expedited neighborhood treatment. The neighborhood must prove the financial ability to fund 100 percent of the anticipated costs, which include field analysis, plan development, engineering drawings, and construction. Upon proof of financial ability, the City can elect to authorize the neighborhood’s request to develop a traffic calming plan. 6 – DES Defines Study Area and Collect Initial Traffic Data Upon notification to proceed, DES staff will initially define the study area, which may be a specific street or much larger area such as a neighborhood. The size of the study area depends on the extent of the trafficrelated concerns and should include any streets that could serve as an alternative route to the treated street.

The study area may also include streets that have their only access to the treated street (e.g., cul-de-sac).

Boundary lines can also follow geographic features such as a creek, hillside, open space, or an arterial roadway. The study area may later be refined with resident input.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 8
If the necessary signatures are attained, the City of Salinas Development and Engineering Services (DES) Division will initiate a neighborhood meeting to discuss neighborhood traffic issues and begin development of a traffic calming plan.

Printed Name Signature Address Phone No.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

To verify local support, please provide the names, signatures, and contact information of at least 10 residents and/or property owners 18 years and older (from separate households) who support requesting that this neighborhood be considered for selection in the next NTMP cycle.

City of Salinas
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Petition Form
Name of Person Submitting Petition form: __________________________________________ Date: ______________________________________________________________________ Phone Number: ______________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Your street or neighborhood is being considered for participation in the City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). This program addresses neighborhood speeding and traffic volume concerns through the use of traffic calming devices. Individual neighborhood plans will partially or completely be funded by the City of Salinas Development and Engineering Services (DES) Division; however, a percentage of the costs may be borne by the neighborhood.

Initial Description of Problem: ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 9
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Based on the study area, DES staff will collect traffic data on streets identified as a concern. Traffic data collection will include the following:
• Street width and length
• Traffic speeds
• Traffic volumes
• Collision history
Traffic speeds and volumes should be collected for a minimum of 48 hours using a mechanical traffic counter or other appropriate device. Staff may elect to conduct a radar speed surveys to verify traffic speeds or conduct a time specific speed survey. Surveys should be collected on all potentially affected streets to insure a comprehensive set of base data for comparison purposes.

PLAN DEVELOPMENT
The plan development component is a collaborative effort between DES staff and a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Committee (NTC). They will work together to develop a traffic calming plan by completing the following steps:
7 – Neighborhood Kick-off Meeting
For those requests selected by DES staff, they will send a petition to the individual who initially requested the investigation. The petition requires a minimum of 10 signatures in support of pursuing a traffic calming plan.

The signatures must be from individuals 18 years and older and from separate households. If the requesting individual cannot attain the minimum required 10 signatures, the request will be terminated. For streets or street segments with fewer than 10 residential units, the City may elect to accept the signatures from a majority of household residents.

Staff will notify study area residents, property owners, and business owners of a neighborhood meeting to learn more about the selection of their neighborhood area to participate in the NTMP. DES staff will host a neighborhood meeting to provide an overview of the NTMP and the process to develop, approve, and implement a neighborhood traffic calming plan. At this meeting, staff will accomplish the following:
• Review traffic-related issues – Discuss the type of issue(s), location(s), and time of occurrences.

Collect any additional information regarding traffic-related issues. • Refine Study area (if necessary) – Staff will refine the study area based on street(s) affected by the traffic-related issues or that may be potentially affected by development of a neighborhood traffic management plan.
• Review traffic data – Review the initial data collected and determine whether additional data collection is necessary.
• Neighborhood traffic management tutorial – Present an overview of available neighborhood traffic calming devices.
• Discuss Funding – The DES will identify the available funding sources and the anticipated amount of funding to be borne by the neighborhood for the construction of traffic calming devices. In addition, residents will be informed of the opportunity to fund enhanced aesthetic features, such as landscaping.

Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 10
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
DES staff will provide interested residents the opportunity to volunteer and participate on the NTC. The NTC will meet with DES staff to review and develop a plan for their neighborhood. Although all residents have the opportunity to provide input and receive updates as the plan develops, the NTC is more actively involved, committing the time and effort necessary to develop a comprehensive plan. 8 – Plan Development
The NTC and DES staff will develop a short list of traffic calming devices to most appropriately treat the traffic concerns. Staff will provide guidance on the selection and placement of the devices. The Toolbox Guideline Tables 1-3 (see Chapter 4) can help to determine the most appropriate devices. The NTC will ultimately present the proposed plan to residents of the study area for public review and comment.

Following implementation on non-physical devices in the initial phase (step 3), Staff will use the following types of physical traffic calming measures to treat the traffic related concerns (see Toolbox chapter for more information):
• Vertical Devices – Speed humps, speed lumps, speed tables, etc. • Narrowing Devices – Bulbouts, chokers, center island narrowings, etc. • Horizontal Devices – Traffic circles, chicanes, lateral shifts, etc.

Because volume control measures (e.g., partial closures or forced turn islands) intentionally divert traffic to another street, new issues are likely to occur as a result. The City strongly promotes connectivity in and between neighborhoods to distribute traffic and minimize all modes of travel. For these reasons, volume control devices should be reserved until all other options have proven ineffective at reducing the traffic-related impacts.

Once DES staff and NTC have developed a plan that will adequately address the neighborhood concerns and finalized the committed funding sources, staff will solicit feedback from local service providers that may be affected by the plan. The intent is to identify concerns and develop viable alternatives to strike a balance between goals of the NTMP and the needs of other agencies. The following service providers should be included as appropriate when coordinating the plan review. • City of Salinas Fire District
• City of Salinas Police Department
• Ambulance Service Providers
• Monterey Salinas Transit
• Local School District / Bus Service
• Solid waste collection companies

Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 11
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
9 – Proposed Plan Neighborhood Meeting
DES staff will notify the study area residents of a neighborhood meeting to review the Proposed Plan.

Residents will have the opportunity to review and provide input on the proposed plan. At this meeting, the NTC will present a map of the proposed plan, describe the types and locations of devices proposed, and discuss the estimated construction costs. If applicable, the NTC will also discuss the aesthetic improvements to gauge resident support. Changes to the proposed plan can be made as necessary.

The DES will also inform residents of the approval process and ballots they will receive once the proposed plan is refined.
10 – DES Conceptual Approval and Verification of Project Funding Prior to determining neighborhood support, DES staff will conceptually approve the plan and verify placement of all proposed traffic calming devices. Staff will also verify the residents’ financial responsibility for the proposed plan. The residents’ financial responsibility may include a portion of the construction costs and any costs for aesthetic upgrades.

NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT
The neighborhood support component assesses the amount of local neighborhood support for the proposed plan in the form of mail-in ballots. DES staff will mail the ballots to the study area residents, property owners, and applicable business owners.
11 – Determine Plan Support
Before distributing ballots, staff will inform residents in the study area regarding the pending vote with an informational brochure. The combination of this step and the neighborhood meeting (Step 9) will help to ensure that residents of the study area are properly informed.

Ballots will be distributed to study area residents, property owners, apartment units, and businesses owners (if applicable). The ballots will include a description and map of the proposed plan indicating the type and location of devices being proposed. The ballot will also include a mail-back postcard with three questions for residents to respond to:
• Do you support the proposed plan?
• Would you oppose traffic calming devices along your property frontage? • Would you contribute to neighborhood funding for the construction of the proposed traffic calming measures?
The mail-back postcard will also provide a space for residents to write comments regarding the proposed plan.

In addition to determining the local neighborhood support, staff will provide the opportunity for residents living outside of the immediate study area to voice their opinions, such as posting a neighborhood sign with city contact information or accepting comments through e-mail or a Web site. The magnitude of support by the general public will also be considered in the plan approval, but safety issues should govern the final decision for implementation.

Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 12
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
12 – Minimum Neighborhood Support
A minimum response rate and approval rate must be obtained before staff can construct the proposed plan.

At least 50 percent of all ballots must be returned with at least 67 percent of returned ballots in favor. For example, if 100 ballots are mailed out, at least 50 must be returned with 34 in favor of the proposed plan.

Apartments present a unique situation because residents may be less likely to respond. For this reason, ballots from apartment units are not counted toward the minimum response rate, but will be counted in favor or against the proposed plan.

DES staff will count all received ballots and determine whether the minimum response rate and approval rate are satisfied. Staff will also tally the general public input. 13 – Neighborhood Support
If the minimum response rate and approval rate is satisfied, the DES will approve the proposed plan and submit the project for funding consideration.

If staff does not receive the minimum number of ballots, staff can assist the NTC in reminding neighborhood residents to submit their mail-back postcards in order to meet the minimum response rate. NTC members are encouraged to solicit input from their neighbors.

If the minimum response rate is met but the approval rate is not satisfied, the NTC has one opportunity to revise the plan. The DES staff and NTC will identify the aspects of the plan not favored by the neighborhood residents. Modifying the plan may also require soliciting a second review by the local service providers, holding a public meeting to present the revised plan, and redistributing ballots to the affected area. Before supplemental work, the DES will need to assess the department’s workload and financial needs to revise the plan.

If the minimum response rate and approval rate are satisfied, then the plan continues to the final component of the process.
14 – TTC Consideration/Recommendation to City Council
DES staff will present to the Traffic and Transportation Commission (TTC) a map of the community approved plan, describe the types and locations of devices proposed, and summarize the estimated construction costs.

If applicable, DES staff will also discuss the aesthetic improvements provided by selected measures. The TTC will make its recommendation to the City Council based on this presentation. 15 – City Council Approval of Traffic Calming and Funding Plans Similar to the TTC public meeting, DES staff will present a map of the community approved plan, describe the types and locations of devices proposed, summarize the estimated construction costs, and discuss the recommendation from the TTC. The City Council will either approve the traffic calming and funding plans to initiate construction, or recommend additional improvements and modifications to the plan – requiring a return to step 8.

Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 13
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The final component consists of preparing the design plans, constructing, and monitoring the approved traffic calming devices.
16 – Design and Consultation
Upon approval of the proposed plan, DES staff will prepare the necessary design plans for each traffic calming device and consult with local service providers if necessary. The DES may conduct field tests to verify that local service providers’ vehicles can navigate through or around the proposed designs. DES will make modifications to the approved devices as necessary. 17 – Construction
Before constructing the traffic calming devices, the DES will inform the public and local service providers of the pending traffic calming devices. The DES will also provide education materials to inform local residents how to negotiate unfamiliar devices, as necessary.

The DES or a City contractor will construct the approved traffic calming devices. The staff may decide to construct temporary devices based on previous experience. DES staff will incorporate aesthetics into the design and construction of temporary devices where possible, but these devices may not be visually appealing due to cost limitations. Aesthetics will be a higher priority for permanent devices. 18 – Monitoring and Evaluation
The DES will monitor the effectiveness and neighborhood perception of the constructed devices for three to six months. Following the monitoring period, the DES will collect traffic speed and volume data for the treated streets and quantitatively determine the effects of the plan.

After constructing the approved plan, the DES will rely on the NTC and community members for feedback on the constructed devices. Based on the NTC and/or community members’ feedback, the DES will determine the next steps. For example, the approved plan may have produced reasonable and satisfactory results, and, therefore, no further action is required.

If the approved plan has not produced reasonable and satisfactory results, the DES can recommend one of the following:
• Collect additional traffic data as deemed appropriate • Modify constructed devices as deemed appropriate
• Construct additional speed control devices as deemed appropriate If the DES determines that additional speed control devices will not adequately address the traffic-related concern, the DES can recommend the use of alternative measures or programs.

Before supplemental work begins, the DES will assess the department’s workload and financial needs to revise the plan.

Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 14
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

PROCESS FOR REMOVAL
The DES recognizes that after devices are approved and implemented, residents may wish to remove these devices. Historically, once installed, most traffic calming devices remain due to local support. This section provides guidelines for a systematic removal process.

Similar to the process for implementing neighborhood traffic calming devices, the removal process is resident-driven. The process requires that the same affected area be involved in the decision process for the removal of devices. As detailed below, greater neighborhood support is also required to verify that the neighborhood truly wants the devices removed. Residents must bear the costs for removal.

The removal process is described below, and the flowchart in Figure 2 outlines the removal process. Each step below is numbered and corresponds to the flowchart on Figure 2. 1 – Citizen Petition for Removal of Device(s)
To initiate the removal process, a resident living in the neighborhood where the device removal is being considered must submit a petition. The petition cannot be submitted within the first year of operation. The petition must be submitted with a minimum of 10 signatures from separate households. The petition must also state the location(s) of device(s) and reason for removal.

Once DES staff receives the petition, they will organize and distribute ballots for the removal process. 2 – Distribute Ballots
Ballots will be distributed to those residents, property owners, and business owners from the original study area. Although tenants or property owners may have changed, the same addresses will be provided the opportunity to participate in the approval process. The ballots will contain descriptions and maps of devices and locations proposed for removal. The ballot will also include a mail-back postcard that residents can use to indicate their support for or against the proposed removal. The ballot will also provide a space for residents to write comments regarding the removal.
3 – Required Neighborhood Support
A higher minimum response rate and approval rate must be met by those households on the treated street. A minimum of 75 percent of all ballots must be returned with at least 75 percent of all ballots received in favor of removal.

Similar to the installation process, apartment units do not count toward the minimum response rate. If the minimum response or approval rates are not met, residents must wait three years before refiling the petition (3a).
4 – Approval by DES
If the neighborhood support meets the minimum response and approval rates, the DES will calculate the estimated removal cost. The neighborhood must prove the ability to fund 100 percent of the anticipated costs.

Upon proof of financial ability, the DES can elect to authorize the removal of the specified devices (4a). A letter will be sent to all local service providers (e.g., Fire Department) indicating the location of device(s) to be removed (4b). If the full cost or removal is not provided, residents must wait three years before refiling the petition (4c).

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 15
Figure 2 NTMP Process For Removal
Citizen Petition for Removal of Devices:

Stating devices to be removed and supporting signatures of 10 residents Distribute ballots: Ballots must be distributed to the same affected area and addresses that originally voted on the implementation of the plan.

Petition for
removal cannot
be resubmitted
for three years.

Petition for
removal cannot
be resubmitted
for three years.

Approval
by DES
Required Neighborhood
Support:

Response Rate – 75%
Approval Rate – 75%
1 2
No
3a 3
Yes
No
4c 4
Yes
Removal of
Device(s) 4a
Notify Local
Service Providers
of Removal
4b
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 16
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

3. TOOLBOX
This chapter of the NTMP summarizes the “toolbox” of devices that are available to the City of Salinas and community members when developing neighborhood traffic calming plans. The “toolbox” contains 31 different devices that address neighborhood traffic related concerns such as speeding vehicles, high traffic volumes, cut-through traffic, or collisions at neighborhood intersections. The devices vary in their ability to treat various traffic related concerns. For this reason, Chapter 4, “Toolbox Guidelines,” provides guidance on selecting the most appropriate devices given the type of specific traffic-related concern and street being treated.

The “toolbox” of neighborhood traffic management devices can be grouped into three categories:
• Non-Physical devices
• Speed Control
− Narrowing devices
− Horizontal devices
− Vertical devices
• Volume Control devices
For each device in the “toolbox,” the following information relating to each device is provided:
• Description of the measure
• Photograph and/or schematic
• List of advantages and disadvantages
• Data sheet indicating speed, volume, or collision reduction potential • Estimated costs
Cost approximations are based on 2006 costs and are provided for information purposes only. Actual costs depend on many factors, including dimensions of device, construction materials, and actual construction costs.

Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 17
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

NON-PHYSICAL DEVICES
Description
Non-physical devices include any measures that do not require physical changes to the pavement section or curbs. Non-physical devices are intended to increase drivers’ awareness of surroundings and influence driver behavior without physical obstructions. DES staff will initially implement non-physical devices to treat traffic related concerns. However, these devices are not self enforcing and may have limited effectiveness as standalone devices. This category includes the following devices:
• Targeted Speed Enforcement
• Speed Radar Trailers
• Speed Feedback Sign
• Centerline/Edgeline Lane Striping
• Optical Speed Bars
• Signage
• Speed Legend
• Centerline/Edgeline Reflectors
• High Visibility Crosswalks
• Angled Parking
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 18
Targeted Speed Enforcement
City Staff or NTC members can identify locations for temporary targeted enforcement, based on personal observations and survey comments. A request can be submitted to the Salinas Police Department (SPD) for the desired enforcement. Because of limited SPD resources, the duration of the targeted enforcement may be limited. Targeted enforcement
may also be used in conjunction
with new neighborhood traffic
management devices to help
drivers become aware of the
new restrictions.

Advantages
• Inexpensive if used
temporarily
• Does not physically slow
emergency vehicles or
buses
• Quick implementation
Disadvantages
• Expensive to maintain
an increased level of
enforcement
• Effectiveness may be
temporary Approximate Cost: No additional cost.

Speed Radar Trailers
A radar trailer is a device that measures each approaching vehicle’s speed and displays it next to the legal speed limit in clear view of the driver. They can be easily placed on a street for a limited amount of time then relocated to another street, allowing a single device to be effective in many locations. Advantages • Portable
• Does not physically slow
emergency vehicles or
buses
• Quick implementation
Disadvantages
• Effectiveness may be
temporary
• Drivers may divert to
alternate streets due to
uncertainty of device
implications
• Subject to vandalism
Approximate Cost: No direct cost. (Purchase $6,000 - $12,000) City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 19
Speed Feedback Signs
Speed feedback signs perform the same functions as radar trailers but are permanent. Real-time speeds are relayed to drivers and flash when speeds exceed the limit. Speed feedback signs are typically mounted on or near speed limit signs. • Subject to vandalism
• Long-term effectiveness
uncertain
• Only effective for one
direction of travel
• May require power
source
Disadvantages
• Permanent installation
• Does not physically slow
emergency vehicles or
buses
• Real-time speed
feedback
Advantages
Approximate Cost: $7,500 - $10,000
Centerline/Edgeline Lane Striping
Lane striping can be used to create formal travel lanes, bicycle lanes, parking lanes, or edge lines. As a neighborhood traffic management measure, they are used to narrow the travel lanes for vehicles, thereby inducing drivers to lower their speeds. The past evidence on speed reductions is, however, inconclusive. • Requires regular
maintenance
• Has not been shown to
significantly reduce
travel speeds
Disadvantages
• Does not slow
emergency vehicles
• Can be used to create
bicycle lanes or
delineate on-street
parking
• Inexpensive
Advantages
Approximate Cost: $2.00 per linear foot
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 20
Optical Speed Bars
Optical speed bars are a series of pavement markings spaced at decreasing distances. They have typically been used in construction areas to provide drivers with the impression of increased speed. They do not provide long-term speed reduction benefits.

Disadvantages
• Long-term effects in
residential area
unknown
• Increases regular
maintenance
Advantages
• Inexpensive
• Does not physically slow
emergency vehicles or
buses
Approximate Cost: $1.00 per linear foot
Signage
Various signs may also be useful in alerting driver of certain conditions.

Examples include:
• Inexpensive
• Truck restrictions can
reduce through truck
traffic
• Does not slow
emergency vehicles or
buses
Disadvantages
• Requires regular
maintenance
• Speed limit signs are not
applicable because they
do not necessarily
change driver behavior
• If speed limits are set
unreasonably low,
drivers are more likely
to exceed it
Advantages
• “Cross Traffic Does Not Stop” Signs
• Truck Restriction Signs
Approximate Cost: $150 - $500 per sign
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 21
Speed Legend
Speed legends are numerals painted on the roadway indicating the current speed limit in miles per hour. They are usually placed near speed limit signposts. Speed legends can be useful in reinforcing a reduction in speed limit between one segment of a roadway and another segment.

They may also be placed at major entry points into a residential area.

Approximate Cost: $75 per location
Centerline/Edgeline Reflectors
Reflectors (also known as Botts dots or “raised pavement markers”) are small bumps lining the centerline or edgeline of a roadway. They are often used on curves where vehicles have a tendency to deviate outside of the proper lane, risking collision. Raised reflectors improve the nighttime visibility of the roadway edges and provide a low impact physical reminder to drivers if driven over.
• Helps reinforce a
change in speed limit
• Does not slow
emergency vehicles
Disadvantages
• Has not been shown to
significantly reduce
travel speeds
• Requires regular
maintenance
Advantages
• Inexpensive
• Does not physically slow
emergency vehicles or
buses
• Can help keep drivers in
the appropriate travel
lane on curves and
under low-visibility
conditions
Disadvantages
• Noise caused by tire
impact
• Requires regular
maintenance
• Has not been shown to
significantly reduce
travel speeds
Advantages
• Inexpensive
Approximate Cost: $4.50 per marker
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 22
High Visibility Crosswalks
High-visibility crosswalks use special marking patterns and raised reflectors to increase the visibility of a crosswalk. A “triple-four” marking pattern is created by painting two rows of four-foot wide rectangles, separated by four feet of unpainted space across the roadway. Raised reflectors are placed at the approach edges of these rectangles. The unpainted space along the center of the crosswalk provides an untreated path for wheelchair users and foot traffic, as markings may become slippery in rainy/wet conditions. See Appendix C for the City of Salinas Pedestrian Safety
Enhancement Devices
Policy, which
describes the City
accepted standards of
high visibility crosswalks in school zones.

Approximate Cost: $1,600 per location
Angled Parking
Angled parking reorients on-street parking spaces to a 45-degree angle, increasing the number of parking spaces and reducing the width of the roadway available for travel lanes. Angled parking is also easier for vehicles to maneuver into and out of than parallel parking.

Consequently, it
works well in
areas with high
parking demand
and turnover
rates, and where
street widths are
wider than normal
50 foot or greater
cross-sections.
• Requires more
maintenance than
normal crosswalks
Advantages
• Reduces speeds by
narrowing the travel lanes
• Increases the number of
parking spaces
• Provides for easier parking
maneuvers that take less
time than parallel parking
• Favored by businesses and
multi-family residences
Disadvantages
• Precludes the use of bike
lanes (unless roadway is
wider than 58 feet)
• Ineffective on streets with
frequent driveways
• Potential for collisions when
backing out
Advantages
• Increased visibility of
crosswalk
• Focus crossing
pedestrians at a single
location
Disadvantages
• May give pedestrians a
false sense of security,
causing them to pay less
attention to traffic
Approximate Cost: Dependent on amount of parking
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 23
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
SPEED CONTROL – NARROWING DEVICES
Description
Narrowing devices use raised islands and curb extensions to physically narrow the travel lane for motorists.

The narrowing devices in the toolbox include:
• Neckdown/Bulbout
• Center Island Narrowing/Pedestrian Refuge
• Two-Lane Choker
• One-Lane Choker
Each narrowing device is illustrated and described on the following pages.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 24
Neckdown/Bulbout
Neckdowns/bulbouts are raised curb extensions that narrow the travel lane at intersections or midblock locations. Neckdowns/bulbouts “pedestrianize” intersections by shortening the crossing distance and decreasing the curb radii, thus reducing turning vehicle speeds. Both of these effects increase pedestrian comfort and safety at the intersection.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of neckdowns between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56).

On average, neckdowns achieve a 7 percent reduction in speeds.

Approximate Cost: $6,000 – $12,000 per corner
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -7% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -10%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

NEW CONSTRUCTION

RETROFIT
Disadvantages
• Effectiveness is limited by
the absence of vertical or
horizontal deflection
• May slow right-turning
emergency vehicles
• Potential loss of on-street
parking
• May require bicyclists to briefly
merge with vehicular traffic
Advantages
• Reduces pedestrian crossing
distance and exposure to
vehicles
• Through and left-turn
movements are easily
negotiable by large vehicles
• Creates protected on-street
parking bays
• Reduces speeds (especially
right-turning vehicles) and
traffic volumes
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 25
Center Island Narrowing/Pedestrian Refuge
Center island narrowings are raised islands located along the centerline of a street that narrow the travel lanes at that location. Placed at the entrance to a neighborhood, and often combined with textured pavement, they are often called “gateways." Fitted with a gap to allow pedestrians to walk through at a crosswalk, they are often called “pedestrian refuges.” They can also be landscaped to increase visual aesthetics.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of center island narrowings between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). On average, center island narrowings achieve a 7 percent reduction in speed.

Approximate Cost: $10,000 - $15,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -7% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -10%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

UPGRADED AESTHETICS

FITTED WITH PEDESTRIAN REFUGE
• Aesthetic upgrades can
have positive aesthetic
value
• Reduces traffic volumes
if alternative routes are
available
Disadvantages
• Effect on vehicle speeds
is limited by the absence
of any vertical or
horizontal deflection
• Potential loss of onstreet parking
Advantages
• Can increase pedestrian
safety
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 26
Two-Lane Choker
Chokers are curb extensions at midblock that narrow a street. Chokers leave the street cross section with two lanes that are narrower than the normal cross section.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of twolane chokers between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). On average two-lane chokers achieve a 7 percent reduction in speed.

Approximate Cost: $7,000 - $8,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -7% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -10%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.
• Easily negotiable by
emergency vehicles and
buses
• Can have positive
aesthetic value
• Reduces both speeds
and volumes
Disadvantages
• Effect on vehicle speeds
is limited by the absence
of any vertical or
horizontal deflection
• May require bicyclists to
briefly merge with
vehicular traffic
• Loss of on-street parking
• Build-up of debris in
gutter
Advantages

RETROFIT WITH UPGRADED

AESTHETICS (COMBINED WITH HUMP)

NEW CONSTRUCTION
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 27
One-Lane Choker
One-lane chokers narrow the roadway width such that there is only enough width to allow travel in one direction at a time. They operate similarly to one-lane bridges, where cars approaching on one side must wait until all traffic in the other direction has cleared before proceeding.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of onelane chokers between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56).

On average, one-lane chokers achieve a 14 percent reduction in speed.

Approximate Cost: $8,000 - $9,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -14% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -20%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

Advantages
• Maintains two-way
vehicle access, except
at choker
• Very effective in
reducing speeds and
traffic volumes
Disadvantages
• Perceived as unsafe
because opposing traffic
is vying for space in a
single lane
• Can be used only on
low-volume, low speed
roads
• Loss of on-street parking

RETROFIT WITH

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 28
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
SPEED CONTROL – HORIZONTAL DEVICES
Description
Horizontal deflection devices use raised islands and curb extensions to physically eliminate straight-line paths along roadways and through intersections. The horizontal deflection devices in the toolbox include:
• Traffic Circle
• Roundabout (Single-Lane)
• Chicane
• Lateral Shift
• Realigned Intersection
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 29
Traffic Circle
Traffic circles are raised islands, placed in intersections, around which traffic circulates. Stop signs or yield signs can be used as traffic controls at the approaches of the traffic circle. Circles prevent drivers from speeding through intersections by impeding the straight-through movement and forcing drivers to slow down to yield. Depending upon the size of the intersection and circle, trucks may be permitted to turn left in front of the circle.

Traffic circles are raised islands, placed in intersections, around which traffic circulates. Stop signs or yield signs can be used as traffic controls at the approaches of the traffic circle. Circles prevent drivers from speeding through intersections by impeding the straight-through movement and forcing drivers to slow down to yield. Depending upon the size of the intersection and circle, trucks may be permitted to turn left in front of the circle.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of traffic circles between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). On average, traffic circles achieve an 11 percent reduction in speeds and a dramatic 71 percent decrease in collisions.

Approximate Cost: $10,000 - $25,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Impacts Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -11% Volume Impacts Reduction in Vehicles per Day -5%
Safety Impacts Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions -71% Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

Disadvantages
• If not designed properly,
difficult for emergency
vehicles or large trucks
to travel around
• Must be designed so
that the circulating traffic
does not encroach on
crosswalks
• Potential loss of onstreet parking
Advantages
• Very effective in
moderating speeds and
improving safety
• Can have positive
aesthetic value

STANDARD RIVER ROCK TREATMENT

WITH UPGRADED AESTHETICS AESTHETICS
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 30
Roundabout (Single-Lane)
Like traffic circles, roundabouts require traffic to circulate counterclockwise around a center island. But unlike circles, roundabouts are used on higher volume streets to allocate right-of-way among competing movements. They are found primarily on collector streets, often substituting for traffic signals. They are larger than neighborhood traffic circles, have raised splitter islands to channel approaching traffic to the right, and do not have stop signs. Due to large amount of required right-of-way and construction costs, roundabouts may be most appropriate for new developments.

Roundabouts have an insignificant effect in reducing traffic speeds, but serve to allocate right-of-way at an intersection similar to a traffic signal.

On average, roundabouts can reduce the average number of accidents up to 33 percent when compared to a signalized intersection.

Approximate Cost: Varies by intersection and whether new construction or a retrofit.

Measured Effectiveness
Speed Impacts Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Impacts Reduction in Vehicles per Day I/D
Safety Impacts Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions -15% to -33% Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2000.

Advantages
• Enhanced vehicle safety
compared to a traffic signal or
stop sign
• Minimizes queuing at
approaches to the intersection
• Less expensive to operate
than traffic signals
• Can have positive aesthetic
value
• Shorter pedestrian crossing
distance
Disadvantages
• May require major
reconstruction of an existing
intersection
• Loss of on-street parking
• Continuous flow of traffic limits
opportunity for pedestrians to
cross (compared to signal)
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 31
Chicane
Chicanes are curb extensions that alternate from one side of the street to the other, forming S-shaped curves. Chicanes can also be created by alternating on-street parking between one side of the road and the other.

Each parking bay can be created either by restriping the roadway or by installing raised center islands at each end, creating a protected parking area. Chicanes have limited effectiveness in reducing traffic speeds and volumes as compared to other devices. Little data has been collected to predict the reduction in speed, traffic volumes, or collisions, and use of this device may not result in significant decreases. Resources permitting, DES staff can collect before and after data to determine the effectiveness of chicanes.

Approximate Cost: $8,000 - $14,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Impacts Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Impacts Reduction in Vehicles per Day I/D
Safety Impacts Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient data to predict reduction effect. • Must be designed carefully
to discourage drivers from
deviating out of the
appropriate lane
• Curb realignment and
landscaping can be costly,
especially if there are
drainage issues
• Loss of on-street parking
Advantages
• Discourages high speeds
by forcing horizontal
deflection
• Easily negotiable by
emergency vehicles and
buses
Disadvantages

RETROFIT WITH

STANDARD TREATMENT

RETROFIT WITH

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 32
Lateral Shift
Lateral shifts are curb extensions on otherwise straight streets that cause a shift in the travel. Lateral shifts, with just the right degree of deflection, can be effective. However, lateral shifts have had limited use in the United States, and, consequently, insufficient data prevents accurate prediction of speed reduction and traffic volumes.

Approximate Cost: Dependent on size of offset and length of transition
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day I/D
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect. • Must be designed carefully
to discourage drivers from
deviating out of the
appropriate lane
Advantages
• Can accommodate higher
traffic volumes than many
other neighborhood traffic
management measures
• Easily negotiable by large
emergency vehicles and
buses
Disadvantages
• Potential for loss of onstreet parking
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 33
Realigned Intersection
Realigned intersections provide deflection on an otherwise straight approach of a T-intersection. By providing deflection in the form of a curb extension or realignment, drivers are required to slow through the intersection or come to a stop before turning.

Little data has been collected to predict the reduction in speed, traffic volumes, or collisions, and use of this device may not result in significant decreases. Resources permitting, DES staff can collect before and after data to determine the effectiveness of realigned intersections.

Approximate Cost: $15,000 - $30,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day I/D
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect. • Modifying curbs or
drainage can be costly
• Acquiring additional rightof-way can be costly
Disadvantages
Advantages
• Can be effective at
reducing speeds at
T-intersections
• Can be effective in
increasing safety at
T-intersections
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 34
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
SPEED CONTROL – VERTICAL DEVICES
Description
Vertical deflection devices use variations in pavement height and alternative paving materials to physically reduce travel speeds. The design speeds for these devices are approximately 15 to 20 mph depending on the device. The vertical deflection devices in the toolbox include:
• Speed Hump
• Speed Lump
• Speed Cushion
• Speed Table
• Raised Crosswalk
• Raised Intersection
• Textured/Colored Pavement
• Rumble Strip
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 35
Speed Hump
Speed humps are rounded raised areas placed across the road. They are generally 12 feet long (in the direction of travel), 3 to 3 ½ inches high, parabolic in shape, and have a design speed of 15 to 20 mph. They are usually constructed with a taper on each side to allow unimpeded drainage between the hump and curb. When placed on a street with rolled curbs or no curbs, bollards are placed at the ends of the speed hump to discourage vehicles from veering outside of the travel lane to avoid the device.

The magnitude of reduction in speed is dependent on the spacing of speed humps between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56).

On average, speed humps achieve a 22 percent reduction in speeds.

Approximate Cost: $2,000 - $3,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Impacts Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -22% Volume Impacts Reduction in Average Daily Traffic -18%
Safety Impacts Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions -13% Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.
• Signs may be
unwelcome by adjacent
residents
• Increased noise for
nearby residents
• Relatively easy for
bicyclists to cross
• Very effective in slowing
travel speeds
Disadvantages
• Causes a “rough ride”
for drivers, and can
discomfort people with
certain skeletal
disabilities
• Slows emergency
vehicles and buses
• Aesthetics
Advantages
• Relatively inexpensive
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 36
Speed Lump
The speed lump is a variation on the speed hump, adding two wheel cutouts designed to allow large vehicles, such as emergency vehicles and buses, to pass with minimal impedance. The design limits passenger cars and most SUVs from fully passing through the cut-outs, but allows one set of wheels to pass through the cut-out while the other set is required to travel over the lump.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of speed lumps between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). Speed lumps have a similar reduction in speeds when compared to speed humps.

Approximate Cost: $2,000 - $3,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points Volume Reduction Reduction in Average Daily Traffic
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D, but
comparable to
speed humps
Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect. • Passenger vehicles with
wide wheel base can
pass through the lump
using the wheel cut-outs
• Aesthetics
• Signs may be
unwelcome by adjacent
residents
• Increased noise for
nearby residents
Disadvantages
Advantages
• Effective in reducing
speeds
• Maintains rapid
emergency response
times
• Relatively easy for
bicyclists to cross
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 37
Speed Cushion
Speed cushions are constructed from durable recycled rubber and are a variation of the speed lump. These prefabricated devices consistently have a more uniform shape than asphalt humps. Speed cushions provide wheel gaps for emergency vehicles and buses, and can be arranged to fit any street width. They can also be easily relocated if needed.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of speed cushions between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). On average, speed cushions achieve a 14 percent reduction in speeds.

Approximate Cost: $4,500 - $6,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -14% Volume Reduction Reduction in Average Daily Traffic
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions Comparable
to Speed
Lumps
Source: City of Portland, Rubber Speed Bump Research, 1995.

Advantages
• Provides a more
consistent ride than
asphalt humps
• Can be used as a
temporary device during
a testing phase
• Reduces impacts to
emergency vehicles due
to cut-outs
• Easily accommodates
street resurfacing
Disadvantages
• Aesthetics
• Signs may be
unwelcome by adjacent
residents
• Increased noise for
nearby residents
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 38
Speed Table
Speed tables are flat-topped speed humps approximately 22 feet long. They are typically long enough for the entire wheelbase of a passenger car to rest on top. Their long, flat fields, plus ramps that are more gently sloped than speed humps, give speed tables higher design speeds than humps, and, thus, may be more appropriate for streets with higher ambient speeds. Brick or other textured materials improve the appearance of speed tables, draw attention to them, and may enhance safety and speed reduction.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of speed tables between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). On average, speed tables achieve an 18 percent reduction in speeds.

Approximate Cost: $4,000 for basic treatment
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Impacts Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -18% Volume Impacts Reduction in Vehicles per Day -12%
Safety Impacts Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions -45% Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.
• Signs may be
unwelcome by adjacent
residents
• Increased noise for
nearby residents
Advantages
• Smoother on large
vehicles (such as fire
trucks) than speed
humps
• Effective in reducing
speeds, though not to
the extent of speed
humps
Disadvantages
• Aesthetics
• Textured materials, if
used, can be expensive

STANDARD TREATMENT

UPGRADED AESTHETICS

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 39
Raised Crosswalk
Raised crosswalks are speed tables striped with crosswalk markings and signage to channelize pedestrian crossings, providing pedestrians with a level street crossing. Also, by raising the level of the crossing, pedestrians are more visible to approaching motorists.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of raised crosswalks between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). On average, raised crosswalks achieve an 18 percent reduction in speeds.

Approximate Cost: $5,000 for basic treatment
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Impacts Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -18% Volume Impacts Reduction in Vehicles per Day -12%
Safety Impacts Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions -45% Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

STANDARD TREATMENT

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
• Textured pavement can
increase noise to
adjacent residents
• Signs may be
unwelcome by adjacent
residents
Advantages
• Improve safety for both
vehicles and pedestrians
• Aesthetic upgrades can
have positive aesthetic
value
• Effective in reducing
speeds, though not to
the extent of speed
humps
Disadvantages
• Textured materials, if
used, can be expensive
• Impact to drainage
needs to be considered

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 40
Raised Intersection
Raised intersections are flat raised areas covering entire intersections, with ramps on all approaches. They usually rise to sidewalk level, or slightly below, to provide a “lip” for the visually impaired. By modifying the level of the intersection, the crosswalks are more readily perceived by motorists to be a pedestrian area. They are particularly useful where loss of on-street parking due to other traffic calming devices is considered unacceptable. Raised intersections are ineffective at reducing traffic speeds or volumes.

Approximate Cost: Varies based on size of intersection
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -1% Volume Reduction Reduction in Average Daily Traffic I/D Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
• Expensive, particularly
as a retrofit
• Textured pavement can
increase noise to
adjacent residents
Advantages
• Can improve safety for
pedestrians and
motorists
• Aesthetic upgrades can
have positive aesthetic
value
• Can treat two streets at
once
Disadvantages
• Less effective in
reducing vehicle speeds
than speed humps and
speed tables

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 41
Textured/Colored Pavement
Textured colored pavement includes the use of stamped pavement (asphalt) or alternate paving materials to create an uneven surface for vehicles to traverse. Textured pavement may have limited effectiveness as a standalone device and should be used to supplement other devices such as raised crosswalks or center median islands. Little data has been collected to predict the reduction in speed, traffic volumes, or collisions, and use of this device may not result in significant decreases. Resources permitting, DES staff can collect before and after data to determine the effectiveness of textured pavement.

Approximate Cost: $8.00 per square foot
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Reduction Reduction in Average Daily Traffic I/D Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect. • Can be uncomfortable
for bicyclists or
handicapped.
• Textured pavement can
increase noise to
adjacent properties
Advantages
• Can reduce vehicle
speeds
• Aesthetic upgrades can
have positive value
• Placed at an
intersection, it can slow
two streets at once
Disadvantages
• Expensive, varying by
materials used
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 42
Rumble Strip
Rumble strips are closely spaced raised pavement markers at regular intervals on the roadway that create noise and vibration to the vehicle. Rumble strips can be used to warn drivers of a change in speed limit, leading up to a residential or school area, and upcoming stop sign or intersection. Rumble strips should be used only in areas where the noise impact would be minimal. Little data has been collected to predict the reduction in speed, traffic volumes, or collisions, and use of this device may not result in significant decreases.

Resources permitting, DES staff can collect before and after data to determine the effectiveness of rumble strips.

Approximate Cost: $500 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Reduction Reduction in Average Daily Traffic I/D Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect. • Maintenance of raised
pavement markers
• Aesthetics
• Uncomfortable for
motorcyclists and
bicyclists
Advantages
• Relatively inexpensive
• Can be effective in
slowing travel speeds in
specific locations
Disadvantages
• Raised pavement
markers can be slippery
when wet
• Increased noise in
vicinity of rumble strips
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 43
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
VOLUME CONTROL – DEVICES
Description
Diversion devices use raised islands and curb extensions to physically preclude particular vehicle movements, such as left-turn or through movements, usually at an intersection. These devices can be considered only after all other devices have been attempted and failed to resolve the traffic problem. The diversion devices in the toolbox include:
• Full Closure
• Partial Closure
• Diagonal Diverter
• Median Barrier
• Forced Turn Island
• Turn-Movement Restriction
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 44
Full Closure
Full street closures are barriers placed across a street to close the street completely to through traffic, usually leaving only sidewalks or bicycle paths open. The barriers may consist of landscaped islands, walls, gates, side-by-side bollards, or any other obstructions that leave an opening smaller than the width of a passenger car. Emergency vehicles can be accommodated via removable bollards or similar devices.

Approximate Cost: $50,000 - $100,000 per location (dependent on size and treatment)
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -44%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.
• Able to maintain
pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity
Disadvantages
• Requires statutory actions
for public street closures
• Causes circuitous routes
for local residents
• Diverts traffic to another
street
• Delays for emergency
services unless through
access is provided
• May limit access to
businesses
• Cost
Advantages
• Very effective in reducing
cut-through traffic volumes
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 45
Partial Closure
Half street closures are barriers that block travel in one direction for a short distance on otherwise two-way streets. Half closures are the most common volume control measure after full street closures. Half closures are often used in sets to make travel through neighborhoods with a grid street pattern circuitous rather than direct.

Approximate Cost: $5,000 - $7,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -19% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -42%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

STANDARD TREATMENT

WITH BICYCLE LANE
• Able to maintain two-way
bicycle access
• Effective in reducing traffic
volumes
Disadvantages
• Causes circuitous routes
for local residents
• May limit access to
businesses
• Drivers can bypass the
barrier
Advantages

UPGRADED TREATMENT

WITHOUT BICYCLE LANE
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 46
Diagonal Diverter
Diagonal diverters are barriers placed diagonally across an intersection, blocking through movement. Like half closures, diagonal diverters are usually staggered to create circuitous routes through neighborhoods.

Approximate Cost: $20,000 - $25,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -4% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -35%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

STANDARD TREATMENT

WITH MINOR LANDSCAPING TREATMENT
• Able to maintain full
pedestrian and bicycle
access
• Reduces traffic volumes
Disadvantages
• Causes circuitous routes
for local residents
• Delays for emergency
services
• May be expensive
• May require reconstruction
of corner curbs
Advantages

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 47
Median Barrier
Median barriers are raised islands that are located along the centerline of a street and continue through an intersection so as to block through (and left-turn) movement at a cross street.

Approximate Cost: $15,000 - $20,000 per 100 feet (dependent on length and width)
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -31%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

STANDARD TREATMENT

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
Disadvantages
• Requires available street
width on the major street
• Limits turns to and from
the side streets and
driveways for local
residents and emergency
services
Advantages
• Can improve safety at an
intersection of a local
street and a major street
by prohibiting critical
through or left-turn
movements
• Can reduce traffic volumes
on a cut-through route that
crosses a major street
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 48
Forced-Turn Island
Forced turn islands are raised islands that prohibit certain movements on approaches to an intersection.

Approximate Cost: $3,000 - $5,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -31%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

BASIC TREATMENT • If designed improperly,
drivers can maneuver
around the island to make
an illegal movement
• May divert a traffic
problem to a different
street
Advantages
• Can improve safety at an
intersection by prohibiting
critical turning movements
• Reduces traffic volumes
Disadvantages

STANDARD TREATMENT
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 49
Turn-Movement Restrictions
Turn movement restrictions involve the use of signs to prevent undesired turning movements without the use of physical devices. The restrictions may generally apply to turning movements in or out of a residential street to a larger street. The turn movement restrictions may be permanent or only during peak commute hours.

Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day I/D
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Approximate Cost: $150 per sign (enforcement may be necessary to be effective) Disadvantages
• Restrictions apply to
resident and non-residents
• Requires enforcement
during time of restriction to
be effective
• May divert a traffic
problem to another street
Advantages
• Can reduce cut-through
traffic at specific times of
day
• Can increase safety at an
intersection by prohibiting
certain turning movements
• Low cost
Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 50
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

4. TOOLBOX GUIDELINES
This section provides guidance on selecting the most appropriate neighborhood traffic management measure for a specific problem. This involves narrowing the toolbox of neighborhood traffic management measures to those that will most closely target the key traffic issue; are appropriate for the existing street characteristics; and are compatible with the traffic volumes, geometrics, and adjacent land uses near the given location.

When the list has been narrowed, devices should be considered that are likely supported by affected residents. Finally, the selected devices need to be placed in a manner that will produce the desired results.

GUIDELINES
Step 1 – Identify Traffic Related Concern
The first task when selecting the most appropriate traffic calming device is to narrow the field of devices to those that address the primary traffic concern. The most common traffic related concerns are:
• Speeding – motor vehicle speeds are too high
• Traffic Volumes – motor vehicle usage levels (all trips or non-local trips only) are too high • Safety – locations with higher occurrences of collisions, higher concentrations of bicyclists and pedestrians, or potential hazards (e.g., sight distance limitations) Each device in the toolbox is appropriate to a different subset of the above traffic-related concerns. Table 1 summarizes the appropriateness of each device.

Non-Physical Measures
The first solutions to consider should be non-physical measures, such as signs and markings, since these can devices increase driver awareness, are relatively inexpensive, and are the least intrusive to residents.

Speed Control Measures
Speed control measures can address any of the major problem types:
• Narrowing Measures – Narrowing devices, such as neckdowns, center island narrowings, or chokers, are less obtrusive than other devices and can be more aesthetically pleasing if residents opt to fund upgraded landscaping and assume the maintenance cost and responsibilities. • Horizontal Measures – Horizontal deflection devices, such as chicanes and traffic circles, are more intrusive but also more effective than narrowings because they force vehicles to navigate horizontally around physical objects. Residents can also elect to fund upgraded landscaping. • Vertical Measures – Vertical deflection devices provide the greatest speed reduction, and consequently have the greatest potential to slow emergency response vehicles, buses, and trucks.

Therefore, the placement of these devices should be carefully considered, especially to limit any potential impact on emergency vehicles or transit access.

Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 51
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Volume Control Measures
If speed-control measures fail to produce desired results, then diversion measures, such as street closures or forced turns may be considered. These devices redirect traffic to an adjacent street, and, therefore, should be considered after all other measures fail to produce the desired results. Volume control measures limit through traffic or turning movements at specific locations for both residents and non-residents. The full effect of the traffic diversion should be investigated before device implementation.

Step 2 – Identify Location Type
The appropriate device for a given problem is a function of the location (midblock or at an intersection).

Special consideration will be given to streets used by the City of Salinas Fire Department or ambulance services as primary emergency response routes. Appendix D presents the City of Salinas Primary Fire Response routes with functional roadway classifications. Generally, traffic calming of emergency response routes is limited to non-physical treatments on major arterials; however, there are certain conditions for which traffic calming measures may be appropriate on emergency response routes classified as minor arterials and collectors.

Table 2 indicates the location(s) where each type of traffic calming measure is applicable.

Step 3 – Consider Street Classification, Location, and Other Constraints The third step in determining the most appropriate device is to consider how each device is compatible with the street classification, traffic volumes, posted speeds, and special roadway users. Table 3 illustrates where each device is appropriate with certain constraints.

EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON
When more than one traffic calming device is available, decision-makers should understand the levels of effectiveness for each device to better determine which device will have the greatest effect in meeting the specified objective(s). Table 4 summarizes the effectiveness data (including excluded devices) that have been compiled for each of the neighborhood traffic management measures in the toolbox. These data are averages and the actual effectiveness will vary based on site-specific circumstances, such as proximity to major roads and the availability of alternate routes.

PLACING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Strategies for the specific placement of devices differ depending on whether the concern is speed-control, volume-control, or safety related. The placement of devices is described below.

Placing Speed-Control Measures
Where feasible, neighborhood traffic management measures should be spaced in such a way to achieve the following two design speeds:
• Slow-Point 85th Percentile Design Speed: the speed that 85 percent of vehicles are traveling less than, when they are crossing a neighborhood traffic management device; the target slow-point speed is defined as 5 mph below the posted speed limit.
• Midpoint 85th Percentile Design Speed: the speed that 85 percent of vehicles are traveling less than, when they are halfway between a traffic calming device or other roadway feature that requires Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 52
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
significant slowing (e.g., stop sign or curve). The target midpoint speed is defined as 5 mph above the posted speed limit.

Figure 3 illustrates how to estimate the midpoint speed.

TABLE 1

APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENTS BY TRAFFIC RELATED CONCERN
Type of Traffic Related Concern
Types of Measures Speeding Traffic
Volume
Vehicle
Collisions
Pedestrian
Safety
Noise
Non-Physical Control Measures
Targeted Speed Enforcement z { Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ
Speed Radar Trailer z { { { Ÿ
Speed Feedback Sign z { { { Ÿ
Centerline/Edgeline Lane Striping z { { { {
Optical Speed Bars Ÿ { { { {
Signage z Ÿ Ÿ { {
Speed Legend z { { { {
Centerline/Edgeline Reflectors { { z Ÿ {
High Visibility Cross Walks Ÿ { { z {
Angled Parking z Ÿ { { {
Speed Control – Narrowing Measures
Neckdown/Bulbout z Ÿ { z {
Center Island Narrowing/
Pedestrian Refuge z Ÿ Ÿ z {
Two-Lane Choker z Ÿ { { {
One-Lane Choker z Ÿ { { {
Speed Control - Horizontal Measures
Traffic Circle z Ÿ z Ÿ {
Roundabout (Single-Lane) Ÿ Ÿ z { z
Chicane z Ÿ { { {
Lateral Shift Ÿ Ÿ { { {
Realigned Intersection Ÿ Ÿ z { {
Speed Control – Vertical Measures
Speed Hump z z Ÿ Ÿ ³
Speed Lump z z Ÿ Ÿ ³
Speed Cushion z z Ÿ Ÿ ³
Speed Table z Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ ³
Raised Crosswalk z Ÿ Ÿ z ³
Raised Intersection z Ÿ Ÿ z ³
Textured/Colored Pavement Ÿ { { Ÿ ³
Rumble Strips Ÿ { { { ³
Volume Control Measures
Full Closure z z { { {
Partial Closure z z { { {
Diagonal Diverter z z { { {
Median Barrier { z Ÿ { {
Forced Turn Island { z Ÿ { {
Turn-Movement Restriction { z Ÿ { {
Key: z = Strongly Appropriate ³ = Inappropriate/Counterproductive Ÿ = Moderately Appropriate { = Indifferent
Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 53
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
TABLE 2

APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENTS BY LOCATION
Type of Measure MidBlock Intersection
Study
Perimeter Collectors
Transit
Routes
Non-Physical Control Measures
Targeted Speed
Enforcement z z z z z
Speed Radar Trailer z z z z z
Speed Feedback Sign z z z z z
Centerline/Edgeline Lane
Striping z ³ ³ z z
Optical Speed Bars z ³ ³ z z
Signage z z z z z
Speed Legend z z z z z
Centerline/Edgeline
Reflectors
On
Curves ³ ³ z z
High Visibility Crosswalks z Unsignalized
Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersections
z z
Angled Parking z ³ ³ z {
Speed Control – Narrowing Measures
Neckdown/Bulbout ³ z z z z
Center Island Narrowing/
Pedestrian Refuge z z z z z
Two-Lane Choker z ³ ³ z* z
One-Lane Choker z ³ ³ ³ ³
Speed Control – Horizontal Measures
Traffic Circle ³ z { z z
Roundabout (Single-Lane) ³ { { z z
Chicane z ³ ³ z z
Lateral Shift z ³ ³ z z
Realigned Intersection ³ Unsignalized
Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersections z z
Speed Control – Vertical Measures
Speed Hump z ³ ³ {* ³
Speed Lump z ³ ³ { z
Speed Cushion z ³ ³ { z
Speed Table z ³ ³ { {
Raised Crosswalk z { { { {
Raised Intersection ³ z z { {
Textured/Colored Pavement z z z z z
Rumble Strips z z { z z
Volume Control Measures
Full Closure ³ z z {* ³
Partial Closure ³ z z z z
Diagonal Diverter ³ z ³ {* ³
Median Barrier ³ { z {* ³
Forced Turn Island ³ { z { {
Turn-Movement Restriction ³ { z { {
Key: * Not generally acceptable for Primary Fire Response Routes – See Appendix D for specific streets. ³ = Never applicable. { = Seldom, except in some cases. z = Generally applicable.

Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 54
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
TABLE 3

APPLICABILITY BY STREET TYPE
Roadway Classification Types of Measures Local Collector Other Considerations Non-Physical Control Measures
Targeted Speed Enforcement
Speed Radar Trailer
Speed Feedback Sign No
Centerline/Edgeline Lane
Striping
Optical Speed Bars No Limitations with respect to ADT or Speed None Signage
Speed Legend
Centerline/Edgeline Reflectors
High Visibility Crosswalks
Angled Parking ADT <4,000; Width ≥48 feet: Speed Limit
≤30 mph
Speed Control – Narrowing Measures
Neckdown/Bulbout
Center Island Narrowing/
Pedestrian Refuge
Two-Lane Choker
ADT ≤ 20,000; Speed Limit ≤ 35 None
One-Lane Choker ADT ≤ 3,000;
Speed Limit ≤ 30 No DES must review sight distance.

Speed Control – Horizontal Measures
Traffic Circle Daily Entering Volume <10,000; Speed Limit ≤ 35 mph
Roundabout (Single-Lane) No
Daily Entering
Volume <16,000;
Speed Limit ≤ 45 mph
Grades ≤ 4%
Chicane No ADT ≤ 5,000; Speed
Limit ≤ 35 Grades ≤ 8%
Lateral Shift No ADT ≤ 20,000; Speed
Limit ≤ 35
Realigned Intersection Daily Entering Volume <5,000; Speed Limit ≤ 35 mph
None
Speed Control – Vertical Measures
Speed Hump
Speed Lump
Speed Cushion
ADT<4,000;
Speed Limit ≤ 30mph
Speed Table 1
Raised Crosswalk ADT<7,500: Speed Limit 30 mph or 35 mph Raised Intersection No
Grades ≤ 8%
Textured/Colored Pavement 2 No Yes Noise impact to adjacent residential units
Rumble Strips 2 Yes Yes Noise impact to adjacent
residential units
Notes: 1 Not appropriate for streets without curbs, gutter, or sidewalks. 2 Use of this device should be limited to locations where noise impacts would be minimal.

Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 55
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)

APPLICABILITY BY STREET TYPE
Roadway Classification Types of Measures Local Collector Other Considerations Volume Control Measures
Full Closure No
Partial Closure
Diagonal Diverter
Median Barrier
Forced Turn Island
Turn-Movement Restriction
≥ 25% non-local traffic.

Evaluation should be conducted to
determine effects of
diverted traffic to alternate routes
None
Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 56
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
TABLE 4

QUANTITATIVE IMPACTS OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES Effectiveness
85th Percentile Change Vehicles
Per Day
Average Annual Collisions
Types of Measures
Before After Change Percent
Change Change Percent
Change Before After Change Percent
Change
Non-Physical Measures
All Non-Physical
Measures Limited Effectiveness as stand alone device
Speed Control – Vertical Measures
Entry Feature I/D I/D I/D
Speed Hump 35.0 27.4 -7.6 -22% -355 -18% 2.62 2.29 -0.33 -13% Speed Lump Comparable to speed hump but I/D
Speed Cushion1 Comparable to speed
hump but I/D
-14% Comparable to speed hump but I/D
Split Speed Hump 37 32 -5 -14% I/D I/D
Speed Table
Raised Crosswalk 36.7 30.1 -6.6 -18% -415 -12% 6.71 3.66 -3.05 -45% Raised Intersection 34.6 34.3 -0.3 -1% Ineffective
Textured Pavement Limited Effectiveness as stand alone device Rumble Strips I/D and Limited Effectiveness
Speed Control – Narrowing Measures
Neckdown/Bulbout
Center Island
Narrowing
Two-Lane Choker

34.9 32.3 -2.6 -7% -293 -10%
One-Lane Choker I/D -14% I/D -20%
I/D
Speed Control – Horizontal Measures
Traffic Circle 34.2 30.3 -3.9 -11% -293 -5% 2.19 0.64 -1.55 -71% Roundabout
(Single-Lane) Insignificant Speed Effects Insignificant Volume Effects Not Recorded -15%
to -
33%
Chicane I/D and Limited Effectiveness
Lateral Shift Ineffective
Realigned
Intersection I/D I/D I/D
Volume Control Measures
Full Closure I/D I/D I/D I/D -671 -44% I/D
Partial Closure 32.3 26.3 -6.0 -19% -1,611 -42% I/D
Diagonal Diverter 29.3 27.9 -1.4 -4% -501 -35% I/D
Median Barrier
Forced Turn Island
Turn-Movement
Restrictions

I/D I/D I/D
Stop Signs
Stop Signs I/D I/D I/D
Notes: I/D = Insufficient Data
Source: Traffic Calming State-of-the Practice (Ewing, 1999) 1City of Portland, Rubber Speed Bump Research, 1995
Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 57
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Figure 3 Estimating Midpoint Speed
In mathematical terms, the following exponential function gives the relationship between midpoint speed and spacing of slow points:
85th
midpoint (mph) = 85thslow point (mph) + (85thstreet (mph) –85thslow point (mph)) * 0.56 * (1 – e –0.004 * spacing (ft.)) where;
85th
midpoint = resulting 85th percentile speed at midpoint after treatment; 85th
slow point = estimated 85th percentile speed at the slow point after treatment; 85th
street = 85th percentile speed of street before treatment; spacing = distance in feet between two devices.

When placing speed-control measures, use the above formula to test proposed spacings to determine whether the estimated midpoint speeds would meet the targeted midpoint speed.

Example (speed humps on street with starting speed of 32 mph):

Where spacing is 350 feet:
85th
midpoint (mph) = 15 mph + ((32 mph – 15 mph) * 0.56 * (1 – e –0.004 * 350 feet)) 85th
midpoint (mph) = 22 mph
Where spacing is 750 feet:
85th
midpoint (mph) = 15 mph + ((32 mph – 15 mph) * 0.56 * (1 – e –0.004 * 750 feet)) 85th
midpoint (mph) = 24 mph
The spacing of neighborhood traffic management measures directly affects the midpoint speeds: the farther apart they are, the higher the midpoint speed. In general, speed control measures placed 350 to 750 feet from another slow-point can result in speed reductions similar to those indicated in Table 4. Measures placed at intervals of less that 350 feet can become a nuisance to drivers, and measures placed greater than 750 feet apart decrease the ability to slow speeds to the target midpoint speed. In addition, vertical measures should be place a minimum of 250 feet from an adjacent intersection.

Placing Volume-Control Measures
Neighborhood traffic management devices intended to divert traffic can be located either external or internal to the neighborhood.
• Gateway Measures – Volume-control measures placed at entrances or gateways to neighborhoods can be more effective in reducing volumes because drivers encounter these devices upon entering a neighborhood, which may deter future use. However, these measures can also cause local traffic to take more circuitous paths than internal measures would. • Internal Measures – When placed within a neighborhood, measures have a less direct effect on nonlocal traffic. First-time attempts to travel through the neighborhood will occur more frequently, and drivers will seek alternative routes within the neighborhood. However, this type of placement can cause less of an inconvenience to local traffic.

Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 58
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Placing Safety Measures
The placement of safety-oriented neighborhood traffic management devices is dependent on the particulars of the traffic-related concern and on the characteristics of the selected neighborhood traffic management device.

For example, if the traffic related concern involves pedestrian safety, then the solution – a raised crosswalk, for example – should be placed at a location where it is likely to be heavily used by pedestrians.

Chapter 5 – New Development Guidelines Page 59
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

5. NEW DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
Proposed developments can benefit from neighborhood traffic management strategies. Developers can anticipate and prevent concerns about speeding and traffic volumes by reviewing neighborhood plans and proposing refinements to reduce or avoid future traffic-related concerns. In addition, neighborhood traffic management measures incorporated with project construction often receive greater acceptance than a retrofit approach. Traffic calming measures can be included as off-site mitigation measures for infill or redevelopment projects that are surrounded by existing developments that may be impacted by project traffic.

This information in this chapter is a tool for staff and project designers to identify potential problem areas and suggested remedies. Anticipating future problems and remedies is a subjective activity, not conducive to absolute standards. However, it may be appropriate to incorporate general language into City documents regarding the role of staff in identifying potential neighborhood traffic problems and suggesting remedies.

In most cases, staff and the developer’s representatives should be able to identify mutually acceptable neighborhood traffic management features, which are then incorporated into the proposed plans. However, in some cases, staff may need to develop conditions-of-approval that can be discussed, modified, and/or approved by the relevant governing bodies.

SUGGESTED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
As part of the City of Salinas development review process, City staff may consider the need for neighborhood traffic management measures within the proposed development or off-site. New development and redevelopment projects may be required to design, build, and maintain traffic calming features as part of the development project through the subdivision improvement agreement, development agreement, homeowners’ association, and other development-related mechanisms.

The City’s process of reviewing new residential subdivisions varies and is dependent on the decision type.

Information contained in the development application determines the permit type and subsequent process.

Although the processes differ, they all require staff review after the submission of the plans. At this point, City staff may recommend or condition the inclusion of traffic calming measures.

The toolbox and application guidelines contained in other sections of this document should provide staff and developer representatives with both ideas and guidance on selecting the most appropriate treatments for the identified problem.

The following flowchart is a suggested approach for City staff during the development review process.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 5 – New Development Guidelines Page 60
Figure 4 New Development Review Process
Receipt of Developer Plans
Are projectgenerated
neighborhood
issues likely?
(speeding, volume or
pedestrian conflicts)?
Use street guidelines or traffic
calming toolbox to recommend
appropriate solutions.

Recommend changes to address
issues.

Are
reductions in
conflict
areas
acceptable?
Continue Standard
Review Process
Submit to local service providers
(Fire, Police, Transit, Schools) for
review.

Are changes
acceptable
to local
service
providers?
Yes
No
No
Yes No
Chapter 5 – New Development Guidelines Page 61
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PRACTICES
During the development review process, staff should review the street network and intersection traffic controls to determine areas of potential speeding, excessive volume on residential streets, or pedestrian conflict areas. Where appropriate, developers should be required to incorporate traffic calming measures into their development plan. The process for reviewing street and lot plans for new developments and prescribing refinements may include the following, at staff discretion:
• Traffic Volumes – Estimate the average daily traffic (ADT) on residential roadways within and surrounding the proposed project.
− If traffic volumes on residential streets are projected to be less than 1,500 vehicles per day (vpd), then no action is needed, nor will it be taken.
− If the projected traffic volume on a residential street is 1,500 - 3,000 vpd, then consider traffic calming treatments depending upon the context (such as area history, resident expectations, or magnitude of change).
− For projected volumes of above 3,000 vpd on a residential street, consider as a priority incorporate traffic calming measures to lessen the impact. • Traffic Speeds – Identify potential speeding concerns on new streets and adjacent existing streets.

Potential problem areas may include:
− Streets with unimpeded block lengths (i.e. slow points) greater than 600 feet between traffic control or traffic calming devices, or as determined by staff. − Areas where roadway grades may increase the potential for speeding, as determined by staff. − Areas with potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, such as schools, parks, or community centers. − Areas with design attributes that encourage speeding, such as wide travel lane width, absence of on-street parking lane, absence of a bike lane, and long block lengths. • Street Layout – Staff may request street design and layout modifications if an area is likely to experience cut-through traffic.
• Adjacent Neighborhoods – Consider traffic calming measures in new developments where adjacent neighborhoods include traffic calming, as determined by staff. • Traffic Calming Plan – Based on the size and nature of the proposed development, staff will determine if a traffic calming plan is necessary. As described above, a traffic calming plan should be developed when the proposed street layout cannot be modified in such a way that will eliminate foreseeable traffic problems. The applicant’s representative should develop the traffic calming plan with DES oversight.

DESIGNING STREET NETWORKS
Neighborhood traffic management measures have traditionally been installed as retrofit measures in existing neighborhoods in response to a particular traffic concern. The guidelines below describe some common street design features and their propensity to lead to neighborhood traffic management concerns such as speeding and cut-through traffic. The guidelines should assist developers in laying out streets in new residential developments and staff in reviewing them pursuant to the process described above. This chapter Chapter 5 – New Development Guidelines Page 62
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

is by no means comprehensive on the layout of new residential streets. For detailed information on street design and layout, refer to the following City of Salinas documents:
• City of Salinas General Plan, September 2002
• City of Salinas City Code – Section 31-804.5, November 2006 • Standard Specifications, Design Standards, and Standard Plans – Standard Plan No. 3, 2004 The following documents provide supplemental readings on the subject of designing residential streets.

These are guidance documents only:
• Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, Homburger, Deakin, Bosselmann, Smith, and Beukers (Institute of Transportation Engineers), 1989
• Residential Streets, 3rd Edition, American Society of Civil Engineers, Institute of Transportation Engineers, National Association of Home Builders, and the Urban Land Institute, 2001 • Traditional Neighborhood Development: Street Design Guidelines, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1999

DESIGNING FOR APPROPRIATE SPEEDS
The design of residential streets can often influence vehicles speeds. Residential streets that are wide, long, straight, and have few uninterrupted blocks have been shown to have a positive correlation to higher vehicle speeds. To minimize vehicle speeds, consider the following attributes when designing residential streets:
• Travel Lane Width – Current City standards for street width varies depending on the adjacent land use, and presence of on-street parking. Figures C-1 through C-4 of the Salinas General Plan specify standard cross-sections for new and existing streets. Provisions for on-street parking are also provided within these standards. Figure 5 shows a positive correlation between pavement width and increased traffic speeds.3

New streets should not exceed the current City standards. However, if additional width is provided in anticipation of high on-street parking demand, the roadway should be treated with appropriately spaced chokers, center median islands or other neighborhood traffic calming devices. • Block Length – Some street networks leave excessively long blocks with few side street intersections. Drivers who travel distances 600 feet or greater, as illustrated in the chart below, without being required to slow or stop by traffic control or neighborhood traffic management devices, tend to travel at speeds higher than the posted limit. To minimize this effect, the street network can be designed such that street blocks are frequently interrupted by streets of sufficient traffic volumes to warrant a traffic control device (e.g., stop sign) or a traffic calming device. Shorter block lengths also facilitate pedestrian movement throughout the neighborhood. The chart shows the correlation between unimpeded block length and travel speed.

Acceptable block lengths for urban local streets should not exceed 600-800 feet, while urban collector street block lengths should not exceed 1,000 feet.
3 Ballard, Andrew J. and Haldeman, David M. “Low Speed Design Criteria for Residential Streets.” ITE Journal December 2002: 44-46.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 5 – New Development Guidelines Page 63
• Parking Lanes – In circumstances where adjacent land uses generate low on-street parking demand (such as large-lot subdivisions or collectors without fronting uses) the street can function as if it were wider than intended. If the parking demand can be accommodated elsewhere, the parking lanes should be eliminated or restricted to one side of the street and the street width reduced accordingly.

Figure 5 Correlation Between Pavement Width, Unimpeded Street Length and Speed

DESIGNING FOR LOCAL TRAFFIC
Some residential collector streets can become cut-through routes, or routes used by non-local motorists as a means of bypassing congested or circuitous arterial roads. In these cases, the residential collector should be modified in one of two ways:
• The collector can be designed with a deviating path so that the overall distance by collector is greater than the distance by arterial.
• The residential roadway network can be designed such that traffic-controlled intersections interrupt the parallel collector route sufficiently that the travel time by collector is greater than the travel time by arterial.

PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE CONFLICT AREAS
Some elements of residential areas, such as schools, parks, community centers, or other high pedestrian generators, have particularly high potential for vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. The major pedestrian routes to school should be identified and traffic controls should be structured so that the number of crossings at uncontrolled cross-streets is minimized and pedestrians are directed to the most appropriate crossing locations. For both schools and parks, entrances tend to focus pedestrian street crossings at particular locations. These entrances can be made safer by combining them with roadway intersections, so that the intersection’s traffic control can also allocate right-of-way to pedestrians.

If a pedestrian-oriented land use is located in an area where speeding or high traffic volumes are unavoidable, then select neighborhood traffic management measures that accommodate and provide benefit to pedestrians. For example, at an intersection, bulbouts or center island narrowings should be given some preference over other measures, such as intersection realignment or speed humps. While a realigned intersection or speed hump may slow traffic in the area, a bulbout or center island narrowing assists Chapter 5 – New Development Guidelines Page 64
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
pedestrians by creating a shorter crossing distance and physical roadway narrowing, thereby reducing driver speed.

DEVELOPING A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
When a proposed street layout cannot be modified in such a way that will eliminate foreseeable potential traffic problems, the City should require preparation of a neighborhood traffic management plan (NTMP).

Follow the procedure for developing an NTMP as described in the Toolbox Chapter, with the following exceptions:
• For speed-related problems, existing travel speed data will not be available. Consequently, a response to anticipated speeding problems must rely on roadway geometry. For example, if a block length is greater than 600 feet, then the developer could use neighborhood traffic management measures to divide the block into segments that are each shorter than 600 feet. • For volume-related problems, traffic volume data will be available only in the form of traffic forecasts, and these will typically be limited to the major roads. The City or developer may need to prepare manual traffic volume estimates using land use quantities and trip generation rates for the proposed development.
• Anticipated safety problems will likely revolve around land uses that generate pedestrian activity, such as schools, parks, and community centers. For these land uses, consider the planned locations of walkways, gates, and building entrances when placing neighborhood traffic management devices (such as raised crosswalks or bulb-outs). Likewise, land use planning should consider existing and future traffic safety features.
• For some neighborhood traffic management measures, particularly those involving modified curbs, the developer can achieve significant cost-savings by constructing them concurrent with roadway construction. Consequently, when selecting a type of neighborhood traffic management measure, additional preference should be given to measures that take advantage of these cost-savings.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Appendix A – Design Guidelines Page A - 1
APPENDIX A – DESIGN GUIDELINES
This section describes the guiding design principles relating to various physical traffic calming devices. The design guidelines are based on recommended designs published in Traffic Calming State-of-the Practice4 and Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming5
. Appendix B contains standard engineering design templates for the most common traffic calming devices.

SPEED CONTROL – VERTICAL MEASURES
Ramp Profiles
Ramp profile describes the angle or approach of the vertical measure that a vehicle would traverse. Vertical measures (e.g., speed humps) should use Parabolic profiles on the approach and departure ramps to the device. Parabolic profiles have consistently been used in other programs around the nation and are a recommended design according to Institute of Transportation Engineers: Guidelines for the Design & Application of Speed Humps (ITE, 1993). Figure A-1 shows three commonly used profiles, and a description of each follows below:
• Sinusoidal profiles have slightly less reduction effects on speed than circular and parabolic profiles but higher comfort levels for vehicles and bicyclists and are typically more difficult and expensive to construct due to the slope of the profile. • Circular profiles have moderate reduction effects on speeds (compared to the two other profiles) and comfort levels for vehicles and bicyclists.
• Parabolic profiles have the greatest reduction effects on speeds but have the lowest comfort levels for vehicles and bicyclists due to the greater rise in the slope of the profile.

Figure A-1 Vertical Measure Ramp Profiles

4 Ewing, R. (1999). Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers/Federal Highway Administration.
5 Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming, (1998) Ottawa, Canada: Transportation Association of Canada.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Appendix A – Design Guidelines Page A - 2
Edge Tapers
The edge taper refers to the transition area between a vertical measure at its full height and the edge of the device. Edge tapers on vertical measures (e.g., speed humps and excluding raised crosswalks) should extend to the edge of the pavement (i.e., not into the gutter) to prevent blocking the gutter drainage.

On streets without vertical curbs, the edge taper should extend the full length of the pavement width to discourage drivers from straddling or driving around the vertical measure. In addition, an advisory sign (or other barrier) should be placed on either approach of the vertical device to prevent drivers from driving around the device.

Example: Bollards and advisory
sign encourage drivers to travel
over speed hump.

Edge Tapers – Parking and Bikeways
Vertical devices should extend across any parking or bike lane to prevent drivers from veering into the bike lane. Consequently, bicyclists
will traverse the even section
(as opposed to the tapered
portion) of the device. In
addition, vehicles parking on
the street will have the option to
park on a portion of the device
or avoid the device entirely.

Example: Speed lump extends to the edge of pavement across bike lane.

Raised Crosswalk Tapers
Example: Unimpeded drainage.

Raised crosswalks should always be designed to a height equal to the curb height, but not fully extend to the curb, as this will impede drainage. To bridge the gap between the sidewalk and raised crosswalk, a metal connector plate or other approved device may be used to allow unimpeded flow of the gutter. The design should also include truncated dome plates to indicate the entrance to the crosswalk from the sidewalk. Raised crosswalks may not be appropriate where curbs do not exist.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Appendix A – Design Guidelines Page A - 3

HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION MEASURES
Traffic Circle Center Island Profile
Example: Vertical inner curb and mountable
apron.

Traffic circles should be designed with both a vertical inner curb and a mountable apron. The vertical inner curb prevents vehicles from driving over the circle. The apron is a shallowsloped curb extending out from the bottom of a vertical curb; the apron has a low lip at its pavement-side edge. This apron effectively reduces the diameter of the center island for large vehicles, facilitating easier turns. The lip at the apron’s edge discourages vehicles from using it unnecessarily.

Traffic Circle Turn Operations
All vehicles should circulate around the center island on leftturns. However, an exception can be made for large trucks and buses in some cases if geometric constraints require it. If a specific intersection has a high proportion of trucks and/or bus traffic, alternative treatments may provide similar results without impact to trucks or busses. All traffic circles should be designed using the appropriate truck turning templates from Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2006). Software packages such as AutoCAD or AutoTURN may also be used
to identify whether emergency response vehicles and buses can maneuver around the circle.

Example: Truck turning radius using
mountable apron.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Appendix A – Design Guidelines Page A - 4
Traffic Circles at T-Intersections
Traffic circles should have deflection on all approaches if implemented at a T-intersection. This can be implemented in both existing neighborhoods in retrofit situations and in new neighborhood. First, a raised island can be placed at the right side of the un-deflected approach to the traffic circle to artificially introduce deflection, as shown in Figure A-2 (a). In new neighborhoods, the street curbs can be modified to allow the center island to be located at the center of the intersection, as shown in Figure A-2 (b).

Figure A-2 Traffic circles at T-Intersections

NARROWING MEASURES
Drainage
Narrowing measures, such as chokers, should be constructed to minimize or avoid blocking gutter flow, as illustrated in the photo. Modifying the drainage can be cost prohibitive and could require regular maintenance to clear debris from the modified gutter.

Example: Retrofit design with unimpeded
drainage.
(a) Existing Neighborhoods (b) New Neighborhoods
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Appendix A – Design Guidelines Page A - 5
Neckdowns/Bulbouts
Narrowing measures, such as neckdowns or chokers, should not be constructed wider than the approximate width of a parked vehicle. Extension of these devices any further than the width of a parked vehicle could present potential safety issues to other drivers.

LANDSCAPING Example: Neckdown at intersection.

The standard treatment for all neighborhood traffic management devices will be hardscape (i.e., grouted cobblestone). Residents may fund aesthetic upgrades to neighborhood traffic calming devices such as landscaping or stamped and colored concrete (i.e., simulated brick work). Aesthetics upgrades not only improve the aesthetic quality of the device but increase the visual presence of the device. Landscaping should be limited to low-lying shrubs and plants. Trees planted on center islands must allow adequate sight distances for motorists.

Example: Standard treatment Example: Upgraded aesthetics City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Appendix A – Design Guidelines Page A - 6

SIGNAGE AND STRIPING
Signage
Signage should be provided at or near traffic calming devices advising motorists of the device. Signage should be visible to both motorists and bicyclists. The signs should be comprised mostly of symbols and be easily understandable to motorists. Figure A-3 illustrates examples of several common warning signs.

The warning sign for a traffic circle or roundabout shown on Figure A-3 should be the standard used at such intersections. The warning sign is clear and concise, showing drivers the route around and turning options of the upcoming traffic circle or roundabout.

Special signing specific to bicyclists may be used as determined by Public Works staff. Examples of this signing include advising motorists not to pass bicyclists through narrow traffic calming devices or informing bicyclists of proper maneuvering of devices. This signage should be used when the travel rights of bicyclists warrant emphasis.

Striping
Pavement markings assist in warning motorists and bicyclists of traffic calming devices in the roadway.

Vertical devices should always include pavement markings on the device and may also include advanced warning legends (see Figure C-6). In certain situations, vertical devices may be unmarked, such as revitalization or beautification plans in a given area. In such cases, the device must be designed to provide a clear contrast with the surrounding environment.

The example image to the right illustrates the preferred striping option for vertical devices, such as speed lumps. This marking option is compliant with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA, 2003).

Example: Recommended striping.

COMBINED MEASURES
Some measures from the toolbox can be combined to increase the combined effect on traffic volumes and speeds. For example, a raised crosswalk may be combined with neckdowns, the effect being a crosswalk that is both shortened and raised above the level of the roadway. Motorists must then react to both a vertical deflection and a narrowing. In assessing the suitability of combined measures, the guidelines in Tables 1, 2, and 3 should be applied for both devices.

Appendix B – Standard Traffic Calming Templates Page B -1 City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
APPENDIX B – STANDARD TRAFFIC CALMING TEMPLATES
Standard neighborhood traffic management device designs are provided for the following measures.

Measures that do not have standard designs should be designed according to each situation specific to the roadway and traffic conditions.

Measure Figure
Speed Hump – Parabolic Profile ..........................................................................................................B-1A Speed Hump – Sinusoidal Profile.........................................................................................................B-1B Speed Lump ........................................................................................................................................... B-2 Speed Table ........................................................................................................................................... B-3 Raised Crosswalk................................................................................................................................... B-4 Raised Intersection................................................................................................................................. B-5 Vertical Device – Advance Warning Markings ....................................................................................... B-6 Neckdown/Bulbout – Intersection........................................................................................................... B-7 Neckdown/Bulbout – Midblock ............................................................................................................... B-8 Center Island Narrowing......................................................................................................................... B-9 Two-lane Choker .................................................................................................................................. B-10 Traffic Circle.......................................................................................................................................... B-11 Chicane................................................................................................................................................. B-12 Partial Closure ...................................................................................................................................... B-13 Diagonal Diverter.................................................................................................................................. B-14 Median Barrier ...................................................................................................................................... B-15 Forced Turn Island................................................................................................................................ B-16