Agenda Packet — Salinas City Council, August 8, 2023 (part 2 of 4)

B. For all sums which the insured becomes legally
obligated to pay as damages caused by
"occurrences" under Section I – Coverage A, and
for all medical expenses caused by accidents
under Section I – Coverage C, which cannot be
attributed only to ongoing operations at a single
designated construction project shown in the
Schedule above:

1. Any payments made under Coverage A for
damages or under Coverage C for medical
expenses shall reduce the amount available
under the General Aggregate Limit or the
Products-completed Operations Aggregate
Limit, whichever is applicable; and

2. Such payments shall not reduce any
Designated Construction Project General
Aggregate Limit.

C. When coverage for liability arising out of the
"products-completed operations hazard" is
provided, any payments for damages because of
"bodily injury" or "property damage" included in
the "products-completed operations hazard" will
reduce the Products-completed Operations
Aggregate Limit, and not reduce the General
Aggregate Limit nor the Designated Construction
Project General Aggregate Limit.

D. If the applicable designated construction project
has been abandoned, delayed, or abandoned
and then restarted, or if the authorized
contracting parties deviate from plans, blueprints,
designs, specifications or timetables, the project
will still be deemed to be the same construction
project.

E. The provisions of Section III – Limits Of
Insurance not otherwise modified by this
endorsement shall continue to apply as
stipulated.
05/05/2023
Capital Providers Insurance
License #0H52316
20750 Ventura Blvd., Ste 305
Woodland Hills CA 91364
Voski Grigoryan
(818) 676-0016 (818) 676-0015
[email protected]
Karla's Janitorial & Suppliers, LLC
1485 Bayshore Blvd.

M.B. 205
San Francisco CA 94124
Palomar Speciallty Insurance Com
23 24 WC
A Y PSIC1251602 03/02/2023 03/02/2024
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :

INSURER E :

INSURER D :

INSURER C :

INSURER B :

INSURER A :

NAIC #
NAME:

CONTACT
(A/C, No):

FAX
E-MAIL
ADDRESS:

PRODUCER
(A/C, No, Ext):

PHONE

INSURED
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

OTHER:
(Per accident)
(Ea accident)
$
$
N / A
SUBR
WVD
ADDL
INSD

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $
$
$
$

PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person)

COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT

AUTOS ONLY

AUTOS ONLY AUTOS

NON-OWNED

OWNED SCHEDULED

ANY AUTO

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Y / N

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH)
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under

ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
$
$
$
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
ER
OTHSTATUTEPER
(MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS

POLICY EXP
(MM/DD/YYYY)

POLICY EFF

LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER
INSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE $
AGGREGATE $
$
OCCUR

CLAIMS-MADE
DED RETENTION $
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $
GENERAL AGGREGATE $
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $
MED EXP (Any one person) $
EACH OCCURRENCE $

DAMAGE TO RENTED
PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY

CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:

POLICY
PROJECT LOC

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)

CANCELLATION

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED

AUTOS ONLY
Salinas Municipal Airport
342 Airport Blvd.

Salinas, CA 93905
Blkt Waiver Subrogation BWWSB

ADDITIONAL COVERAGES
Ref # Description Coverage Code Form No. Edition Date
Limit 1 Limit 2 Limit 3 Deductible Amount Deductible Type Premium Ref # Description Coverage Code Form No. Edition Date
Limit 1 Limit 2 Limit 3 Deductible Amount Deductible Type Premium Ref # Description Coverage Code Form No. Edition Date
Limit 1 Limit 2 Limit 3 Deductible Amount Deductible Type Premium Ref # Description Coverage Code Form No. Edition Date
Limit 1 Limit 2 Limit 3 Deductible Amount Deductible Type Premium Ref # Description Coverage Code Form No. Edition Date
Limit 1 Limit 2 Limit 3 Deductible Amount Deductible Type Premium Ref # Description Coverage Code Form No. Edition Date
Limit 1 Limit 2 Limit 3 Deductible Amount Deductible Type Premium Ref # Description Coverage Code Form No. Edition Date
Limit 1 Limit 2 Limit 3 Deductible Amount Deductible Type Premium Ref # Description Coverage Code Form No. Edition Date
Limit 1 Limit 2 Limit 3 Deductible Amount Deductible Type Premium Ref # Description Coverage Code Form No. Edition Date
Limit 1 Limit 2 Limit 3 Deductible Amount Deductible Type Premium Ref # Description Coverage Code Form No. Edition Date
Limit 1 Limit 2 Limit 3 Deductible Amount Deductible Type Premium Ref # Description Coverage Code Form No. Edition Date
Limit 1 Limit 2 Limit 3 Deductible Amount Deductible Type Premium OFADTLCV Copyright 2001, AMS Services, Inc.

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-465, Version: 1
Regional Early Action Planning 2.0 (REAP 2.0) Grant Application Approve a Resolution authorizing applying for and entering into agreements for the Regional Early Action Planning 2.0 Grant.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/2/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2023
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: LISA BRINTON, DIRECTOR
THROUGH: ROD POWELL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
BY: GRANT LEONARD, PLANNING MANAGER
TITLE: REGIONAL LOCAL EARLY ACTION PLANNING 2.0 (REAP 2.0)

GRANT APPLICATION
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution authorizing applying for and entering into agreements for the Regional Early Action Planning 2.0 Grant Program.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In 2021, the State initiated a second phase of the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Grant program. Known simply as REAP 2.0, the program is intended to support housing production by providing funding to implement local housing plans. Although funded by the State, REAP 2.0 is administered locally by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). REAP

2.0 includes two grant programs, a local suballocation entitlement grant program and a regional competitive grant program. The local suballocation entitlement for Salinas is $180,000. The regional competitive program has $6 million in available funding, and applicants must request a minimum of $500,000. Staff intends to apply for funding to support the development of affordable housing within Chinatown. The application for the suballocation entitlement program is due August 15th, 2023. The application for the competitive grant program is due August 31, 2023.

BACKGROUND:

The first round of REAP funding was directed towards assisting jurisdictions with the preparation of planning documents, process improvements that accelerate housing production, and facilitation of compliance in implementing the sixth cycle of the regional housing need assessment (RHNA).

In 2020, the City applied for and received $530,000 in entitlement REAP funding to support preparation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and the Visión Salinas 2040 General Plan update.

Page | 2
DISCUSSION:

REAP 2.0 is intended to help jurisdictions further support housing production by providing funding for implementation of projects and programs identified in the previous REAP planning efforts. Due to its focus on implementation, REAP 2.0 has a relatively short timeframe, with the funding required to be expended by March of 2026.

In addition to being focused on implementation, REAP 2.0 includes three core objectives:

1. Accelerating Infill Development that Facilitates Housing Supply, Choice, and Affordability

2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

3. Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled
REAP 2.0 provides an opportunity to the City to further support housing production by providing funding to implement the projects and programs identified in the City’s Housing Element and adopted community plans. After reviewing the program guidelines and requirements, staff plans to apply for funding to support the development of affordable housing within Chinatown as it is a prime location for infill housing, would support fair housing, and would reduce vehicle miles traveled by providing housing close to downtown and transit. Additionally, with the City’s previous purchase of properties on Soledad Street, the City is well positioned to use the REAP 2.0 funding by the expenditure deadline of March 2026. The REAP 2.0 Notice of Funding Availability is attached to this staff report.

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 REAP funding will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

REAP 2.0 funding will support the City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025 goal of Housing/Affordable Housing by creating opportunities for future housing development in Chinatown.

DEPARTMENT COORDINATION:

While the Community Development Department will administer REAP funding, this effort will require coordination between multiple City departments. Implementation of affordable housing projects in Chinatown may require collaboration with Public Works, the City Manager’s Office, as well as the Legal and Finance Departments.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

A successful Local Suballocation application will result in $180,000 in grant funding, and a successful Competitive Grant application will result in a minimum of $500,000 in grant funding.

Page | 3
REAP 2.0 does not require a local financial commitment or “match”. REAP 2.0 funds may be leveraged with other grant funding or the Chinatown Capital Improvement Program (CIP) allocation depending on total project cost and the final award amount from AMBAG.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution to Approve Applying for and Entering into Agreements for the Regional Early Action Planning 2.0 Grant Program
REAP 2.0 Notice of Funding Availability
RESOLUTION NO. ____________ (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALINAS TO APPROVE APPLYING

FOR AND ENTERING INTO AGREEMENTS FOR THE REGIONAL EARLY ACTION PLANNING 2.0 GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in July 2021 Assembly Bill 140 established the Regional Early Action Planning 2021 (REAP 2.0) grant program, which allocated $600 million in housing planning funds to regional entities throughout the state; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has been assigned as the state agency overseeing this program; and WHEREAS, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) is serving as the regional fiscal agent of the REAP 2.0 program and administering approximately $10 million in funding; and
WHEREAS, AMBAG has established a Regional Competitive Grant Program with $6 million in available funding and a requirement that applications be for a minimum of $500,000; and
WHEREAS, AMBAG has established a Local Suballocation Grant Program with formula-based allocations for each city within the AMBAG region and the allocation for Salinas is $180,000; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas is eligible to submit applications to AMBAG for both the Regional Competitive Grant Program and the Local Suballocation Grant Program; and WHEREAS, AMBAG shall approve allocation requests subject to the terms and conditions of eligibility, guidelines, Notices of Funding Availability, and program requirements.

WHEREAS, 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 REAP funding will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council authorizes the submission of applications for REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program and the Local Suballocation Grant Program to the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to enter into agreements and take further actions as may be necessary to give effect to this resolution, such as executing amendments and approving funding applications with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments for REAP 2.0 grant funding.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 8th day of August 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
_________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
7/21/23, 9:42 AM Mail - Grant Leonard - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADEzYzFlZGUzLTc0N2EtNDZlYy1hOGRkLWUxNGM4YjM2NGJjMgAQACYGjajuiEAnmgZSbVNTA54%3D 1/1 AMBAG REAP 2.0 Grant Programs Call for Applications is Now Open Paul Hierling <[email protected]>
Thu 6/15/2023 10:39 AM
To:Paul Hierling <[email protected]>
Cc:Heather Adamson <[email protected]>;Maura Twomey <[email protected]>;Chris Duymich <[email protected]>
Interested Parties:

The Association of Monterey Bay Area of Governments (AMBAG) is pleased to announce that the REAP

2.0 Notice of Funding Availability/Call for Applications for the Regional Competitive and Local Suballocation Grant Programs are now open.

In both grant programs, projects must meet the three REAP 2.0 program objectives:

1. Accelerate infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice and affordability,

2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), and

3. Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

How to Apply
The completed application and all required attachments must be submitted by email to [email protected] with “REAP 2.0 Application” in the subject line. An emailed drop box link is also acceptable.

Application Deadline
Applications for the Local Suballocation Grant Program are due by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 15, 2023.

Applications for the Regional Competitive Grant Program are due by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 31, 2023.

Technical Assistance
The following technical assistance resources are available to support applicants during the Call for Applications:

Application Workshop: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:00-2:00pm via Zoom https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87129843234?pwd=V05qN3FmN1dvcUR3dDVvK05ZdTJWdz09 Passcode: 615200
Office Hours: To schedule office hours to discuss potential projects and programs for application, please contact Paul Hierling at [email protected].

For more information on REAP 2.0, please visit the program website at:
https://ambag.org/plans/regional-early-action-planning-grants-program. Guidance and applications can be found at the bottom of the webpage.

BCC: AMBAG Cities; AMBAG Counties; AMBAG Board; AMBAG Planning Directors Forum; Tribal Entities; Interested Parties; Other eligible entities.

Regional Early Action Planning 2021 (REAP 2.0):

LOCAL SUBALLOCATION GRANT PROGRAM (LSGP)
Final Guidelines
Date: June 14, 2023
Table of Contents
Section 1 – Overview..................................................................................................................... 2 Background................................................................................................................................ 2 REAP 2.0 Program Objectives..................................................................................................... 3 Definition of Infill....................................................................................................................... 4 Section 2 – Eligibility...................................................................................................................... 6 2a. Allocation Methodology and Eligible Applicants .................................................................. 6 2b. Eligible Partnerships............................................................................................................. 7 2c. Eligible Uses and Activities ................................................................................................... 8 2d. Ineligible Activities ............................................................................................................. 10 Section 3 – Application Process ................................................................................................... 10 3a. Applying for Funding .......................................................................................................... 11 3b. Unallocated Funds............................................................................................................. 11 3c. Funding Criteria.................................................................................................................. 11 Section 4 – Contract Administration............................................................................................ 12 4a. Implementing Agencies...................................................................................................... 12 4b. Administrative fee.............................................................................................................. 12 4c. Expenditure Period............................................................................................................. 13 4d. Reimbursement ................................................................................................................. 13 4e. Reporting Requirements .................................................................................................... 13 Technical Assistance.................................................................................................................... 13 Timeline....................................................................................................................................... 14 LSGP Scoring Criteria & Methodology......................................................................................... 15 REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 1 of 19 ends

2.0 Program Guidelines. The AMBAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program (LSGP) Guidelines (“Guidelines”) implement the REAP 2.0 Suballocation funding programs in the AMBAG REAP 2.0 Program Framework. The state REAP 2.0 grant supports accelerating housing production, reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT), and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). These guidelines are consistent with, and when necessary, defer to, the state REAP 2.0 Program Guidelines for establishing terms, conditions, forms, procedures, and other mechanisms necessary to effectuate the program. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released REAP 2.0 final program guidelines on July 26, 2022. The AMBAG REAP 2.0 program application is based on inclusive and broad engagement. These guidelines and program will be adjusted as necessary to comply with the state program.

In the REAP 2.0 Guidelines, the state reserves the right, at their sole discretion, to suspend, amend, or modify the provisions of the REAP 2.0 Guidelines at any time, including, without limitation, the amount of funds available hereunder. If such an action occurs, the Department will notify all interested parties. As such, AMBAG reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to suspend or amend the provisions of the REAP 2.0 LSGP guidelines in collaboration with the State, including but not limited to, grant award amounts.

Background
REAP 2.0 (REAP 2021) was established through AB 140 (July 2021) as part of the midͲyear budget revise for the State’s FY 21Ͳ22 budget for transformative and innovative projects that implement a region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and help achieve the objectives of more housing and transportation options that reduce reliance on cars. REAP 2.0 builds on actions completed through the 2019 REAP grant program but expands the focus by integrating housing and climate goals, and by allowing for broader planning and implementation investments, including infrastructure investments supporting housing development.

REAP 2.0 builds off the work achieved through REAP 1.0. In 2020, AMBAG set aside approximately $8 million of REAP 1.0 funding for a grant program to fund subregional planning activities that accelerate housing production and facilitate compliance implementing a jurisdiction’s 6th Cycle RHNA, including developing 6th Cycle Housing Elements. Funding was nonͲcompetitively awarded based on each jurisdiction’s population size category with a minimum allocation of $65,000. REAP 1 was developed to augment resources available through locally received SB 2 and LEAP grants and to foster subregional collaboration to take advantage of economies of scale in meeting housing goals.

The REAP 2.0 Program is funded with $600 million from the State General Fund. AMBAG’s share of this funding is $10,133,742.41. The REAP 2.0 Program is administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in collaboration with the Governor’s Office of REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 2 of 19 ends

Planning and Research (OPR), the Strategic Growth Council (SGC), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

In November 2022, the AMBAG Board of Directors adopted the REAP 2.0 GrantProgram Framework, which outlines the core objectives, guiding principles, programmatic areas, major milestones, and schedule for allocating funds available to AMBAG through the state REAP 2.0 grant program. The REAP 2.0 Program Framework includes three core components:
x Competitive Grant Program (60%Ͳ $6,000,000)
o Developed and administered by AMBAG. Applicant awards must support all REAP

2.0 objectives. This program will suballocate the majority of AMBAG’s REAP 2.0 funds to a competitive program, granting awards to applicants that best achieve all REAP

2.0 goals, objectives and scoring criteria.
x Local Suballocation Grant Program (25%Ͳ $2,625,000)
o The Local Suballocation Grant Program sets aside $2,625,000 for jurisdictions throughout the region for eligible projects which meet all REAP 2.0 goals and objectives. The goal of this suballocation program is to provide all cities and counties with an opportunity to propose a REAP 2.0 eligible projects while allowing for both implementation and planning uses. All projects or programs must achieve all REAP

2.0 goals, objectives and pass thresholding criteria.
x AMBAG SCS Implementation, Technical Assistance, REAP 2.0 Program Development and Administration (15%Ͳ $1,508,742)
o Regional planning activities that support infill development and implement the SCS such as pricing studies, transitͲoriented development and Opportunity Area planning and implementation
o Technical assistance
The REAP 2.0 Program provides funds to regional governments to achieve the three core REAP 2.0 objectives listed below. This includes accelerating housing production and facilitate compliance with the 6th Cycle of the housing element, including regional housing need allocations. REAP 2.0 is specifically designed to provide Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and other Eligible Entities with tools and resources to help implement and advance plans, primarily including Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) as part of Regional Transportation Plans to pursue greenhouse gas emission reduction targets through land use and transportation changes.

REAP 2.0 Program Objectives
Based on feedback from regional jurisdictions and stakeholders the REAP 2.0 LSGP has been developed within the AMBAG REAP 2.0 Draft Program Framework. REAP 2.0 LSGP supports implementation of the region’s housing element work plans as a means of investing in actions identified at the local level that support housing production throughout the region and achieve the REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 3 of 19 ends

REAP 2.0 Program Objectives. Both AMBAG’s Competitive and Local Suballocation Grant Programs must meet the REAP 2.0 objectives which are:

1. Accelerating Infill Development that Facilitates Housing Supply, Choice, and Affordability o Accelerating infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice, and affordability and AFFH through various planning programs, services, or capital expenditures in a way that reduces VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. o The definition of infill for the purpose of this program is further defined in the “Definition of Infill” section below.

2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
o Combats discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster equitable and inclusive communities
o Includes meaningful actions to address disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replace segregated living patterns with balanced living patterns, and transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity; Target funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities.
o Enhances mobility or placeͲbased strategies benefitting housing that meets AFFH goals, or protects existing residents from displacement, or preserves housing choices and affordability in areas of lowerͲ or moderateͲopportunity and concentrated poverty.
o Supports regional and local efforts to work toward ensuring all people have full and equal access to opportunities enabling them to lead healthy lives?

3. Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
o Supports new infill housing development and shift travel away from driving by implementing or supporting pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other alternative transportation programs
o Realizes multimodal communities through programs, plans, and implementation actions
o Shifts travel behavior by reducing driving through programs, ordinances, funds, and other mechanisms
o Increases transit ridership through funding, implementation actions, and planning Definition of Infill
The REAP 2.0 State Coordinating Group coordinated with AMBAG to establish a definition of infill that includes the State’s REAP 2.0 definition if infill and including AMBAG’s Existing/Planned Opportunity Areas and Potential Opportunity Areas as qualifying areas, as defined in AMBAG’s 2045. The definition is as follows:

REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 4 of 19 ends

Projects within Cities:

Projects comply with REAP 2.0 Program goals and objectives and are in areas within an Existing/Planned Opportunity Area or Potential Opportunity Area as defined by the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS (Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045) AND comply with the State infill definition in the REAP 2.0 Guidelines as detailed below.

Projects within Counties:

Projects comply with REAP 2.0 Program goals and objectives and are within an Existing/Planned Opportunity Area or Potential Opportunity Area as defined by the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS (Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045) AND comply with the State infill definition in the REAP 2.0 Guidelines as detailed below. For more about these areas, see: AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS.

All Projects:

In addition to the above, all projects must meet the State REAP 2.0 infill definition. The State REAP

2.0 infill definition pursuant to State guidelines provides that:
“Infill”, for the purposes of the REAP 2.0 Program, means areas where all the following apply: (1) the area consists of unused or underutilized lands (2) within existing development patterns (3) that is or will be accessible to destinations and daily services by transit, walking, or bicycling and located in either:
a. An urban center, urban corridor, or area with transitͲsupportive densities, or b. An established community that meets all the following criteria:
i. The area consists or previously consisted of qualified urban uses ii. The area is predominantly surrounded (approximately 75 percent of the perimeter) by parcels that are developed or previously developed with qualified urban uses.

In counting this, perimeters bordering navigable bodies of water and improved parks shall not be included, and
iii. No parcel within or adjoining the area is classified as agricultural or natural and working lands.
c. Under unique circumstances, applicants may propose an alternative definition of “Infill” subject to approval by the Department and State Collaborative Partners.

Projects/Programs will also explain how the projects awarded will further the SCS in focusing future development within transit corridors (within ½ mile of transit), actionize the Infill Housing Toolkit for SCS implementation with densities beyond single family housing preferred, and support other SCS investments.

REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 5 of 19 ends

Section 2Ͳ Eligibility
The Association of Monterey Bay Area Government’s REAP 2.0 LSGP is the nonͲcompetitive component of the suballocation funds. Regional jurisdictions proposing projects or programs which meet the core REAP 2.0 goals and objectives such as improving housing affordability, increasing housing production, establishing housing closer to jobs, reducing VMT, addressing housing and infrastructure needs in all communities, advancing AFFH and promoting multimodal communities consistent with program guidelines.

The REAP 2.0 LSGP program will have thresholding criteria which mirror REAP 2.0 goals and stakeholder input in order to ensure funded projects meet all REAP 2.0 goals, objectives, and scoring criteria. Metrics will assist in the project/program selection process including screening or thresholding criteria to focus funding in existing urban areas, criteria for infill and measuring how projects/programs reduce VMT, whether they implement the SCS, and criteria to evaluate whether projects are meeting AFFH goals. All project/program screening and thresholding criteria will be grounded in the REAP 2.0 guidance on grant program goals and objectives. Once the suballocation program design is finalized, AMBAG will conduct a regional call for projects for all eligible applicants.

Screening or thresholding criteria will be included in the suballocation program evaluation to assure eligible projects are in areas that satisfy the definition of infill development. All suballocation project/program applications must also include a location which will assist AMBAG in determining if the location is in an eligible infill area.

As referred to in these guidelines “projects or programs” are defined as those projects or programs included in a jurisdiction’s housing element for compliance with HCD requirements. HCD requires each jurisdiction to identify specific projects or programs in its housing element that will allow it to implement the stated policies and achieve the stated goals and objectives. Projects or programs include specific action steps the locality will take to implement its policies and achieve its goals and objectives. Housing element projects or programs should include a specific timeframe for implementation, identify the agencies or officials responsible for implementation, describe the jurisdiction’s specific role, and (whenever possible) identify specific measurable outcomes. 2a. Allocation Methodology and Eligible Applicants
Contingent on approval from the state and subject to change, up to $2,625,000 million of AMBAG’s REAP 2.0 funding allocation, totaling $10,133.742.41, shall be available for the LSGP. Each city and county in the AMBAG region is eligible for funding if an eligible project can be proposed. Funding shall be disbursed on a nonͲcompetitive basis based on whether applicants achieve core REAP 2.0 objectives and pass thresholding criteria.

REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 6 of 19 ends

Eligible cities and counties within the AMBAG region and the amount they may apply for are shown in the following table:

Local Suballocation Grant Program Allocation Table
Jurisdiction 6th Cycle RHNA
Allocation
% Share
RHNA
of Allocation:

Adjusted LSGP
Allocation
Capitola 1,336 3% $128,750
Carmel 349 1% $85,000
Del Rey Oaks 184 0% $85,000
Gonzales 1,266 3% $128,750
Greenfield 730 2% $85,000
Hollister 4,163 11% $180,000
King City 702 2% $85,000
Marina 685 2% $85,000
Monterey 3,654 10% $180,000
Monterey County 3,326 9% $180,000
Pacific Grove 1,125 3% $128,750
Salinas 6,674 17% $180,000
San Benito County 754 2% $85,000
San Juan Bautista 88 0% $85,000
Sand City 260 1% $85,000
Santa Cruz 3,736 10% $180,000
Santa Cruz County 4,634 12% $180,000
Scotts Valley 1,220 3% $128,750
Seaside 616 2% $85,000
Soledad 724 2% $85,000
Watsonville 2,053 5% $180,000
Total 38,279 $2,625,000
2b. Eligible Partnerships
Eligible partners include, but are not limited to, other local governments, regional governments, housing authorities, school districts, special districts, regional transportation planning agencies, universities, transit agencies, communityͲbased organizations, nonͲprofit organizations or any duly constituted governing body of an Indian Reservation or Rancheria. An eligible applicant may partner with other eligible entities to fulfill one or more projects included in the application. One or more eligible applicants may form a partnership to expend part, or all, of a recipient’s LSGP funding.

Partnerships are encouraged when aggregating funds creates an opportunity for leveraging REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 7 of 19 ends

additional outside funding, and for costͲefficiency addressing common needs and actions.

Applicants forming partnerships must provide a legally binding agreement between all partners.

Applicants that are considering this are encouraged to discuss their proposals with AMBAG staff prior to applying to ensure projects are eligible and the work can be completed prior to the end of the expenditure period.
2c. Eligible Uses and Activities
REAP 2.0 funds are focused on implementation of policies, programs and projects, rather than only the planning processes that were the focus of REAP 1.0. The partnership approach supports housing element implementation and creates expanded opportunities for local efforts to align with AMBAG’s regional plans, implement infill, achieve the VMT reduction goals of the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS, and support state planning goals.

To receive funding, applicants must:

1. Submit a qualifying application that is approved by the AMBAG review committee.

Applicants are not required to directly implement projects and may contract for services following state requirements, and when applicable federal requirements. Applicants are not required to apply for all funds available.

2. Demonstrate a nexus to all three REAP 2.0 Program Objectives for each project proposed:
x Accelerating Infill Development that Facilitates Housing Supply, Choice, and Affordability
o Accelerating infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice, and affordability and AFFH through various planning programs, services, or capital expenditures in a way that reduces VMT and greenhouse gas emissions, and goes beyond existing commitments. Infill development must meet the definition of infill provided above in Section 1, REAP 2.0 Program Objectives, Definition of Infill. x Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
o Combats discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster equitable and inclusive communities.
o Includes meaningful actions to address disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replace segregated living patterns with balanced living patterns, and transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity; target funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities.
o Enhances mobility or placeͲbased strategies benefitting housing that meets AFFH goals, or protects existing residents from displacement, or preserves housing choices and affordability in areas of lowerͲ or moderateͲopportunity and concentrated poverty.

REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 8 of 19 ends

o Supports regional and local efforts to work toward ensuring all people have full and equal access to opportunities enabling them to lead healthy lives? x Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
o Supports new infill housing development and shift travel away from driving by implementing or supporting pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other alternative transportation programs.
o Realizes multimodal communities through programs, plans, and implementation actions.
o Shifts travel behavior by reducing driving through programs, ordinances, funds, and other mechanisms.
o Increases transit ridership through funding, implementation actions, and planning.

3. Demonstrate project is eligible for funding and describe how project meets objectives in Section 1, REAP 2.0 Program Objectives. Based on the final State REAP 2.0 Program Guidelines (dated July 26, 2022) example activities and uses include but are not limited to the following:
x Projects or programs leading to or supporting affordable housing development or unit production;
x Planning activities that lead to increased residential and/or mixedͲuse zoned capacity in areas identified as infill, or land use planning, related studies and/or programs that result in implementable/adoptable programs and policies (meaning subject to adoption or approval of the legislative body) required to meet the programs, projects, and commitments in draft, adopted and/or compliant 6th Cycle Housing Elements; x ProgramͲlevel environmental clearance for infill projects with AFFH components; x Upgrading infrastructure for sewer, water, and dry utility systems that may serve affordable infill housing;
x Housing mobility strategies that serve affordable housing; x Reductions to barriers to higher density Housing, buildings with four or more units, and accessibility;
x Outreach strategies to address local opposition to Proposed Use; x Affordable Housing unit production or preservation;
x AntiͲdisplacement protections;
x Expanded Housing options;
x HousingͲsupportive infrastructure;
x Activities that develop, support, or implement land use planning, policies, or investment strategies that result in substantial changes to travel behavior from increasing population and employment densities, land use mix, street network connectivity, linkages and pathways with active transportation infrastructure, REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 9 of 19 ends

accessibility between destinations, and/or contiguousness of land uses and transportation networks; Activities, subject to applicable program funding requirements, that would develop, support, or implement transportation planning, policies, and investment strategies that support Infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice, and affordability such as n. Increasing transit services and access;
x Building at walkable community scales;
x Enhancing pedestrian and bicycling safety measures;
x Protecting pedestrian and bicycling amenities;
x Multimodal infrastructure connections with multimodalͲmobility transportation systems.

4. Submit a complete application along with all required supporting documents within the application period. See Section 3 for information on applying for funding.

Consultants or other external resources may be used for work on eligible activities but are not required. Applicants will indicate in their funding application whether they intend to use existing staff, temporary staff, consultants, or other resources for each activity. 2d. Ineligible Activities
x Activities where clear nexuses to all Program Objectives listed in Section 1 are not demonstrated.
x Activities that obstruct or hinder housing production, e.g., moratoriums, downzoning, planning documents with conditional use permits that significantly impact approval certainty and timing, planned development, or other similarly constraining processes. x Administrative costs of persons employed by the grantee for activities not directly related to the preparation and adoption of the proposed Activity or Activities.

AMBAG will not accept applications for, nor reimburse for, ineligible activities or projects.

Expenditure reimbursement requires prior authorization in writing from AMBAG for the eligible projects and activities. AMBAG may be subject to repayment of REAP 2.0 funds to HCD if it is found in breach of its agreement with HCD, which can occur if REAP 2.0 funds are used for ineligible activities. If AMBAG is required to repay funds to HCD, AMBAG will require reimbursement from the LSGP recipient.

REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 10 of 19 ends

3a. Applying for Funding
Process and Timing:

The application period will be opened following approval from the AMBAG Board and will close at midnight on August 15, 2023.

Application Submittal and Review: The application must include information on proposed projects and activities, key tasks and deliverables, estimated costs, and identification of the implementing agency for each project and activity, among other requirements provided in the application template.

Once applications are reviewed, AMBAG will provide an award letter to the eligible applicant indicating whether the submitted projects are approved for funding, or a letter indicating how the application needs to be revised to be accepted. Projects that do not meet the funding criteria cannot be funded through REAP 2.0 LSGP. A jurisdiction or eligible applicant may revise its application or project scope to meet the funding criteria and resubmit the application up until the final due date.

Applications for ineligible activities or projects that do not meet the funding criteria in Section 1 will not be accepted. Applicants may resubmit revised projects that address the reasons the original submittal was rejected.

Applications will be accepted until the final date to apply, which is by midnight on August 15, 2023.

Given the schedule requirements of the REAP 2.0 Guidelines to award suballocations, if a successful application is submitted, conditional award letters are expected within 60 days of a complete application received from an applicant for a suballocation (not inclusive of encumbrance or an executed Standard Agreement).
3b. Unallocated Funds
Remaining funds that are remaining unencumbered after the application deadline will be available for qualifying projects in the AMBAG Region through March 1, 2024 or at AMBAG’s discretion. By June 30, 2024, all REAP 2.0 funds must be fully encumbered. 3c. Funding Criteria
Funding applications are required to meet all three REAP 2.0 Objectives (Section 1 of the Guidelines) and shall be evaluated for funding based on the Local Suballocation Grant Program Methodology listed at the end of this document, including but not limited to the following criteria:
x Projects/programs proposed are eligible uses and activities (Section 2c.) x Provides a clear statement included demonstrating a nexus between each proposed project (or activity) and all three of the following state program objectives REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 11 of 19 ends

o Accelerating Infill Development that Facilitates Housing Supply, Choice, and Affordability; and
• Infill meets the definition of infill provided in the LSGP Guidance, Section 1, REAP

2.0 Program Guidelines, Definition of Infill; and
o Affirmatively Furthers Fair Housing; and
o Reduces Vehicle Miles Traveled
x Supports compliance with a jurisdiction’s housing element x Provides transformative planning and/or implementation activities x Targets funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities x Leads to substantial changes in land use patterns and travel behaviors x Supports California Planning Priorities. This may include promotion of infill development, supporting environmental and agricultural resources, and or encouraging efficient development patterns
Section 4 – Contract Administration
4a. Implementing Agencies
Jurisdictions or eligible applicants are required to serve as the implementing agency of the project/program proposed in the application. Implementing agencies must be entities eligible to enter into intergovernmental agreements and must demonstrate capacity to implement government grant administration tasks in a timely manner, including applications, contract execution and monitoring, funds management and transfer, and accounting and reporting, including any competitive subͲ contracting if applicable. The implementing agency cannot have any unresolved audit findings from prior government contracts and cannot be party to pending land use, housing, or environmental litigation which could impact the proposed activities.

REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 12 of 19 ends

4c. Obligation and Expenditure Period
Per the requirements of AB 140 all funds distributed under REAP must be obligated by June 30, 2024 and expended by June 30, 2026. To meet this deadline and receive reimbursement in alignment with REAP 2.0 guidelines, AMBAG will require all funds to be obligated by March 1, 2024, unless otherwise directed by AMBAG. LSGP funds that have not be obligated REAP 2.0 program after March 1, 2024 will be obligated at AMBAG’s discretion to other activities consistent with REAP

2.0 goals and objectives. All invoices associated with LSGP submitted to AMBAG no later than March 31, 2026. Invoices received by AMBAG after this date cannot be guaranteed for reimbursement. 4d. Reimbursement
All projects must submit invoices to AMBAG quarterly and a status report quarterly to receive reimbursement. Invoices must follow the requirements set forth in the Subregional Partnership contract and AMBAG’s regular invoicing procedures and must comply with applicable state and/or federal requirements. Expenditure reimbursement requires prior authorization of the eligible projects and activities, and AMBAG may be subject to repayment of REAP funds to HCD if it is found in breach of its agreement with HCD, which can occur if REAP funds are used for ineligible activities.

If AMBAG must repay REAP 2.0 funds to the state, AMBAG will require reimbursement from the eligible applicant or jurisdiction.

AMBAG will provide reimbursement only for costs as specified in the signed agreement(s) with the Jurisdictions or eligible applicants or designee. Costs incurred prior to the date of the grant agreement for the LSGP will not be reimbursed.
4e. Reporting Requirements
Consistent with AMBAG’s Overall Work Program reporting procedures, each jurisdictional partner will be required to provide a quarterly progress report and quarterly invoices to track and measure activity progress. Project progress will be measured according to the tasks, deliverables, costs, and timeline outlined in the jurisdiction’s MOU and agreement.

Technical Assistance
AMBAG staff will provide technical assistance to eligible applicants starting in early 2023 through June 2026. Technical assistance will be available to help subregional partners prioritize activities and complete the application and contracting process. After the start of subregional partnership projects AMBAG staff will be available for guidance with invoicing and reporting.

REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 13 of 19 ends

Timeline
Below is a schedule for the LSGP:
x April 2023: Released draft RCGP Guidelines for public review x June 2023: AMBAG adopts final RCGP Program guidelines and issues Notice of Funding Availability.
x August 15, 2023: Final application and list of prioritized projects from eligible applicants due to AMBAG. (unless due date is extended)
x September 2023: Grant applications are reviewed and evaluated x October/November: AMBAG approves applications and awards REAP 2.0 x December 2023 – February 2024: Execute grant agreements with REAP 2.0 awardees x March 1, 2024: Deadline to encumber REAP 2.0 funds
x March 31, 2026: All REAP projects and activities must be completed; final activity reports due to AMBAG; final project invoices due to AMBAG.

REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 14 of 19 ends

LOCAL SUBALLOCATION GRANT PROGRAM SCORING CRITERIA & METHODOLOGY Introduction:

The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) REAP 2.0 Grant Program framework is divided into three (3) categories:

1. Regional Competitive Grant Program (RCGP)

2. Local Suballocation Grant Program (LSGP)

3. Regional SCS Implementation, Technical Assistance, Program Development, Outreach and Administration
This is the scoring methodology and instructions for AMBAG’s REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program (LSGP).

AMBAG will assess REAP 2.0 applications received from eligible jurisdictions against a variety of criteria. To accomplish this task AMBAG staff members will review and score applications as part of a Review Committee, using pass or fail thresholding criteria. Once the review and thresholding criteria are finalized, the Review Committee will advance eligible projects to the next step.

Projects recommended for funding in Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties must satisfy REAP 2.0 goals and objectives, including geographic equity and a blend of planning vs. implementation projects. Once the draft review and thresholding criteria are finalized, the Review Committee will review the projects and make recommendations to the AMBAG Executive Director. The AMBAG Executive Director will review the work of the Review Committee, and ultimately approve projects.

Projects will be scored in two areas: REAP 2.0 Objectives and Primary Factors, each described below.

REAP 2.0 Objectives
The REAP 2.0 program has three major objectives that each project must satisfy.

The thresholding of applications will determine whether each project satisfies each objective. The objectives include the following and questions that should be considered when thresholding applications are provided.

Accelerating Infill Development that Facilitates Housing Supply, Choice, and Affordability

1. Does the project accelerate infill development near jobs and other key destinations to support housing choice and affordability that effectively reduces VMT and greenhouse gas emissions?

2. Is the project at an infill site and does it have affordability components that serve lowͲ and moderateͲincome households?
REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 15 of 19 ends

3. Is the project for affordable housing development programs – which may involve predevelopment costs (studies, land acquisition, entitlements, etc.), that accelerate the supply of longͲterm affordable housing for lower and moderateͲincome households?

4. Does the project go beyond existing commitments?
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

1. Does the project combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster equitable and inclusive communities?

2. Does the project include meaningful actions to address disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replace segregated living patterns with balanced living patterns, and transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity?

3. Does the project support regional and local efforts to work toward ensuring all people have full and equal access to opportunities enabling them to lead healthy lives?

4. Does the project:
a. Enhance housing mobility strategies that remove barriers to housing, housingͲsupportive infrastructure, increased transportation options, and affordability in areas of high opportunity and outside areas of concentrated poverty; or
b. Improve placeͲbased strategies to encourage community revitalization; or c. Protect existing residents from displacement and preserve housing choices and affordability in areas of lowerͲ or moderateͲopportunity and concentrated poverty?

5. Is the project materially inconsistent with AFFH?

6. Geographic equity – will be addressed post initial thresholding.

7. Does the project target funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities?

8. Unique equity priorities – Geographic equity considerations in suballocation address unique equity priorities.

Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

1. Does the applicant explain how the proposed use promotes development and aligns housing production in infill locations consistent with the state’s climate targets and goals discussed in the California Climate Change Scoping Plan?

2. Is the project consistent with the region’s sustainable communities strategy (SCS) through:

REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 16 of 19 ends

a. Land use planning, polities, and investment strategies by infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice, and affordability and is serviced by existing and planned expansions of a multimodal transportation system; or
b. Transportation planning, policies, and investment strategies by increasing travel options to homes, jobs, services, and other key destinations that provide, support, or enhance multimodal communities and reduce the number or length of vehicle trips?

3. Does the project support new housing development and shift travel away from driving by implementing or supporting pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other alternative transportation programs?
Primary Factors:

The primary factors represent factors from the REAP 2.0 guidelines. The application narratives associated with the primary factors will inform thresholding for the REAP 2.0 objectives portion of the thresholding matrix. Each primary factor is described below.

Housing Element Compliance
Does the project support compliance with a jurisdiction’s housing element? Transformative Planning and Implementation Activities
Does the project provide transformative planning and/or implementation activities? For example, housing, planning, or infrastructure investments supporting infill housing, and other actions that enable meeting housing goals that also result in per capita VMT reductions, including accelerating infill development, supporting residents through realizing multimodal communities, shifting travel behavior through reducing driving, and increasing transit ridership.

Benefit to Disadvantaged Populations
Does the project target funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities?
Significant Beneficial Impacts
The project must contribute to spreading REAP 2.0 projects throughout the region to ensure a significant beneficial regionͲwide benefit.

The project must have the potential to be an innovative pilot project or proofͲofͲconcept for a project that could be replicated throughout the region to result in a significant beneficial impact:

REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 17 of 19 ends

x The project has the potential to be replicated in large, medium, and small jurisdictions throughout the region, and/or;
x The project addresses significant barriers to accelerating housing production in the AMBAG region which apply to more than half of jurisdictions throughout the region?
Additionally, projects must demonstrate one or more of the following thresholding criteria:
x An improved rate of change compared to the baseline; or x The magnitude of impact relative to variables or targets; or x The proportion of need achieved; or
x The impact relative to past trends, policies, and practices? California Planning Priorities
Does the project support California Planning Priorities? This may include promotion of infill development, supporting environmental and agricultural resources, and or encouraging efficient development patterns.

Thresholding Criteria:

Project elements will be rated on a pass or fail basis. Any project that fails one or more of the REAP 2.0 objectives or primary factors will be rejected. Projects that meet all REAP

2.0 objectives and goals will be considered for approval as eligible projects. x Pass: Sufficient evidence of meeting or exceeding requirements x Fail: Insufficient evidence of meeting requirements

THRESHOLDING CRITERIA PASS/FAIL

1. Accelerating Infill Development Pass/Fail

2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Pass/Fail

3. Reducing VMT Pass/Fail
Primary Factors

1. Housing Element Compliance Pass/Fail

2. Transformative Planning and Implementation Activities Pass/Fail

3. Benefit to Disadvantaged Populations Pass/Fail

4. Significant Beneficial Impacts Pass/Fail

5. California Planning Priorities Pass/Fail
Rating Pass/Fail
REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 18 of 19 ends

Subsequent Steps:

AMBAG staff will review each application with a pass or fail rating. If any one or more thresholding criteria rated “fail,” the entire application will be deemed ineligible and rejected. Applicants are allowed to revise their application and resubmit. Applications that pass all thresholding criteria will be considered for recommendation to the Executive director. The AMBAG Executive Director will review and approve final selected projects.

REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

Page 19 of 19 ends

Regional Early Action Planning 2021 (REAP 2.0):

REGIONAL COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM
Final Guidelines
Date: June 14, 2023
Table of Contents
Section 1Ͳ Overview...................................................................................................................... 2 Background................................................................................................................................ 2 REAP 2.0 Program Objectives..................................................................................................... 4 Definition of Infill....................................................................................................................... 5 Section 2Ͳ Eligibility....................................................................................................................... 6 2a. Allocation Methodology and Eligible Applicants .................................................................. 6 2b. Eligible Partnerships............................................................................................................. 7 2c. Eligible Uses and Activities ................................................................................................... 7 2d. Ineligible Activities ............................................................................................................. 10 Section 3 – Application Process ................................................................................................... 10 3a. Applying for Funding .......................................................................................................... 10 3b. Unallocated Funds............................................................................................................. 11 3c. Funding Criteria.................................................................................................................. 11 Section 4 – Contract Administration............................................................................................ 12 4a. Implementing Agencies...................................................................................................... 12 4b. Administrative fee.............................................................................................................. 12 4c. Expenditure Period............................................................................................................. 13 4d. Reimbursement ................................................................................................................. 13 4e. Reporting Requirements .................................................................................................... 13 Technical Assistance.................................................................................................................... 13 Timeline....................................................................................................................................... 14 RCGP Scoring Criteria & Methodology ........................................................................................ 15 REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 1 of 19 ends

Section 1Ͳ Overview
The Association of Monterey Bay Area Government’s (AMBAG) Regional Early Action Planning 2021 (REAP 2.0) Program guidelines have been developed with input from regional jurisdictional stakeholders to align with AMBAG’s adopted REAP 2.0 Program Framework and the state final REAP 2.0 Program Guidelines. The AMBAG REAP 2.0 Competitive Grant Program (RCGP) Guidelines (“Guidelines”) implement the REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive funding program in the AMBAG REAP

2.0 Program Framework. The state REAP 2.0 grant supports accelerating housing production, reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT), and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). These guidelines are consistent with, and when necessary, defer to, the state REAP 2.0 Program Guidelines for establishing terms, conditions, forms, procedures, and other mechanisms necessary to effectuate the program. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released REAP 2.0 final program guidelines on July 26, 2022. The AMBAG REAP 2.0 program application is based on inclusive and broad engagement. These guidelines and program will be adjusted as necessary to comply with the state program.

In the REAP 2.0 Guidelines, the state reserves the right, at their sole discretion, to suspend, amend, or modify the provisions of the REAP 2.0 Guidelines at any time, including, without limitation, the amount of funds available hereunder. If such an action occurs, the Department will notify all interested parties. As such, AMBAG reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to suspend or amend the provisions of the REAP 2.0 RCGP guidelines in collaboration with the State, including but not limited to, grant award amounts.

1.0 was developed to augment resources available through locally received SB 2 and Local Early Action Program (LEAP) grants and to foster subregional collaboration to take advantage of economies of scale in meeting housing goals.

REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 2 of 19 ends

The REAP 2.0 Program is funded with $600 million from the State General Fund. AMBAG’s share of this funding is $10,133,742.41. The REAP 2.0 Program is administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in collaboration with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the Strategic Growth Council (SGC), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

In November 2022, the AMBAG Board of Directors adopted the REAP 2.0 Grant Program Framework, which outlines the core objectives, guiding principles, programmatic areas, major milestones, and schedule for allocating funds available to AMBAG through the state REAP 2.0 grant program. The REAP 2.0 Program Framework includes three core components:
x Regional Competitive Grant Program (60%Ͳ $6,000,000) o Developed and administered by AMBAG. Applicant awards must support all REAP

2.0 objectives. This program will suballocate the majority of AMBAG’s REAP 2.0 funds to a competitive program, granting awards to applicants that best achieve all REAP

2.0 goals, objectives, and pass thresholding criteria.
x AMBAG SCS Implementation, Technical Assistance, REAP 2.0 Program Development, Outreach, and Administration (15%Ͳ $1,508,742)
o Regional planning activities that support infill development and implement the SCS such as pricing studies, transitͲoriented development and Opportunity Area planning and implementation
o Technical assistance
The REAP 2.0 Program provides funds to regional governments to achieve the three core REAP 2.0 objectives listed below. This includes accelerating housing production and facilitate compliance with the 6th Cycle of the housing element, including regional housing need allocations. REAP 2.0 is specifically designed to provide Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and other Eligible Entities with tools and resources to help implement and advance plans, primarily including Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) as part of Regional Transportation Plans to pursue greenhouse gas emission reduction targets through land use and transportation changes.

REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 3 of 19 ends

REAP 2.0 Program Objectives
Based on input from regional jurisdictions and stakeholders the REAP 2.0 RCGP has been developed within the AMBAG REAP 2.0 Program Framework. REAP 2.0 RCGP supports implementation of the region’s housing element work plans as a means of investing in actions identified at the local level that support housing production throughout the region and achieve the REAP 2.0 Program Objectives. Both AMBAG’s Regional Competitive and Local Suballocation Grant Programs must meet the REAP 2.0 objectives which are:
x Accelerating Infill Development that Facilitates Housing Supply, Choice, and Affordability o Accelerating infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice, and affordability and AFFH through various planning programs, services, or capital expenditures in a way that reduces VMT and greenhouse gas emissions, and goes beyond existing commitments.
o The definition of infill for the purpose of this program is further defined in the “Definition of Infill” section below.
x Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
o Combats discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster equitable and inclusive communities
o Includes meaningful actions to address disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replace segregated living patterns with balanced living patterns, and transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity; target funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities.
o Enhances mobility or placeͲbased strategies benefitting housing that meets AFFH goals, or protects existing residents from displacement, or preserves housing choices and affordability in areas of lowerͲ or moderateͲopportunity and concentrated poverty.
o Supports regional and local efforts to work toward ensuring all people have full and equal access to opportunities enabling them to lead healthy lives? x Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
o Supports new infill housing development and shift travel away from driving by implementing or supporting pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other alternative transportation programs
o Realizes multimodal communities through programs, plans, and implementation actions
o Shifts travel behavior by reducing driving through programs, ordinances, funds, and other mechanisms
o Increases transit ridership through funding, implementation actions, and planning REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 4 of 19 ends

Definition of Infill
The REAP 2.0 State Coordinating Group coordinated with AMBAG to establish a definition of infill that includes the State’s REAP 2.0 definition if infill and including AMBAG’s Existing/Planned Opportunity Areas and Potential Opportunity Areas as qualifying areas, as defined in AMBAG’s 2045 MTP/SCS. The definition is as follows:

Projects within Cities:

Projects within Counties:

All Projects:

In addition to the above, all projects must meet the State REAP 2.0 infill definition. The REAP 2.0 infill definition pursuant to State guidelines provides that:
“Infill”, for the purposes of the REAP 2.0 Program, means areas where all the following apply: (1) the area consists of unused or underutilized lands (2) within existing development patterns (3) that is or will be accessible to destinations and daily services by transit, walking, or bicycling and located in either:
a. An urban center, urban corridor, or area with transitͲsupportive densities, or b. An established community that meets all the following criteria:
i. The area consists or previously consisted of qualified urban uses ii. The area is predominantly surrounded (approximately 75 percent of the perimeter) by parcels that are developed or previously developed with qualified urban uses. In counting this, perimeters bordering navigable bodies of water and improved parks shall not be included, and
iii. No parcel within or adjoining the area is classified as agricultural or natural and working lands.
c. Under unique circumstances, applicants may propose an alternative definition of “Infill” subject to approval by the Department and State Collaborative Partners.

REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 5 of 19 ends

Section 2Ͳ Eligibility
The Association of Monterey Bay Area Government’s REAP 2.0 RCGP is the competitive component of the suballocation funds. Regional jurisdictions proposing projects or programs which meet the core REAP 2.0 goals and objectives such as improving housing affordability, increasing housing production, establishing housing closer to jobs, reducing VMT, addressing housing and infrastructure needs in all communities, advancing AFFH and promoting multimodal communities with the best and highest use of grant funds will receive funding.

The REAP 2.0 RCGP program will have grading criteria which mirror REAP 2.0 goals and stakeholder input in order to assure only the most qualified, highͲimpact, transformational projects will be funded. Scoring metrics will assist in the project/program selection process including screening or thresholding criteria to focus funding in existing urban areas, evaluation criteria for infill and measuring how projects/programs reduce VMT, whether they implement the SCS, and criteria to evaluate whether projects are meeting AFFH goals. All project evaluation criteria will be grounded in the REAP 2.0 guidance on grant program goals and objectives. Once the suballocation program design is finalized, AMBAG will conduct a regional call for projects for all eligible applicants.

2.0 funding allocation, totaling $10,133.742.41, shall be available for RCGP. Funding shall be disbursed on a competitive basis based on how well applicants achieve core REAP 2.0 objectives and scoring criteria.

Eligible applicants are cities, counties, Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs), transit agencies, and public universities within the AMBAG region. Eligible Cities and County applicants are:

County of Santa Cruz City of Gonzales
City of Santa Cruz County of San Benito
City of Capitola City of Monterey
City of Watsonville City of Marina
City of Scotts Valley City of Seaside
County of Monterey City of Del Rey Oaks
City of Hollister City of Pacific Grove
City of King City of Soledad
REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 6 of 19 ends

City of Greenfield City of Carmel by the Sea
City of San Juan Bautista City of Salinas
City of Sand City
2b. Eligible Partnerships
Eligible partners include, but are not limited to, other local governments, regional governments, housing authorities, school districts, special districts, regional transportation planning agencies, universities, transit agencies, communityͲbased organizations, nonͲprofit organizations or any duly constituted governing body of an Indian Reservation or Rancheria. An eligible applicant may partner with other eligible entities to fulfill one or more projects included in the application. One or more eligible applicants may form a partnership to expend part, or all, of a recipient’s RCGP funding.

Partnerships are encouraged when aggregating funds creates an opportunity for leveraging additional outside funding, and for costͲefficiency addressing common needs and actions.

Applicants forming partnerships must provide a legally binding agreement between all partners.

To receive funding, applicants must:

1. Submit a qualifying application that is approved by the AMBAG Review Committee.

Page 7 of 19 ends

o Combats discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster equitable and inclusive communities.
o Includes meaningful actions to address disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replace segregated living patterns with balanced living patterns, and transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity; target funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities.
o Enhances mobility or placeͲbased strategies benefitting housing that meets AFFH goals, or protects existing residents from displacement, or preserves housing choices and affordability in areas of lowerͲ or moderateͲopportunity and concentrated poverty.
o Supports regional and local efforts to work toward ensuring all people have full and equal access to opportunities enabling them to lead healthy lives? x Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
o Supports new infill housing development and shift travel away from driving by implementing or supporting pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other alternative transportation programs.
o Realizes multimodal communities through programs, plans, and implementation actions.
o Shifts travel behavior by reducing driving through programs, ordinances, funds, and other mechanisms.
o Increases transit ridership through funding, implementation actions, and planning.

3. Demonstrate project is eligible for funding and describe how project meets objectives in Section 1, REAP 2.0 Program Objectives. Based on the final REAP 2.0 Program Guidelines (dated July 26, 2022) example activities include but are not limited to the following:
x Projects or programs leading to or supporting affordable housing development or unit production;
x Planning activities that lead to increased residential and/or mixedͲuse zoned capacity in areas identified as infill, or land use planning, related studies and/or programs that result in implementable/adoptable programs and policies (meaning subject to adoption or approval of the legislative body) required to meet the programs, projects, and commitments in draft, adopted and/or compliant 6th Cycle Housing Elements; x ProgramͲlevel environmental clearance for infill projects with AFFH components; x Upgrading infrastructure for sewer, water, and dry utility systems that may serve affordable infill housing;
x Housing mobility strategies that serve affordable housing; x Reductions to barriers to higher density Housing, buildings with four or more units, and accessibility;
REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 8 of 19 ends

x Outreach strategies to address local opposition to Proposed Use; x Affordable Housing unit production or preservation;
x AntiͲdisplacement protections;
x Expanded Housing options;
x HousingͲsupportive infrastructure;
x Activities that develop, support, or implement land use planning, policies, or investment strategies that result in substantial changes to travel behavior from increasing population and employment densities, land use mix, street network connectivity, linkages and pathways with active transportation infrastructure, accessibility between destinations, and/or contiguousness of land uses and transportation networks; Activities, subject to applicable program funding requirements, that would develop, support, or implement transportation planning, policies, and investment strategies that support Infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice, and affordability such as n. Increasing transit services and access;
x Building at walkable community scales;
x Enhancing pedestrian and bicycling safety measures;
x Protecting pedestrian and bicycling amenities;
x Multimodal infrastructure connections with multimodalͲmobility transportation systems.

4. Submit a complete application along with all required supporting documents within the application period. See Section 3 for information on applying for funding.

AMBAG will not accept applications for, nor reimburse for, ineligible activities or projects.

Page 9 of 19 ends

in breach of its agreement with HCD, which can occur if REAP 2.0 funds are used for ineligible activities. If AMBAG is required to repay funds to HCD, AMBAG will require reimbursement from the RCGP recipient.

Section 3 – Application Process
AMBAG’s full REAP 2.0 application is pending State approval, and programs are subject to change upon State approval. All activities proposed must meet the requirements established in these guidelines and the state’s REAP 2.0 Program Guidelines. 3a. Applying for Funding
Process and Timing: To apply for project funding, eligible applicants must submit a REAP 2.0 RCGP Application. A jurisdiction or eligible applicant may submit multiple applications through the final due date for eligible projects and activities until it has reached its funding maximum. The minimum grant award for RCGP projects is $500,000. Applicants must indicate whether their project can be partially funded.

The application period will be opened following approval from the AMBAG Board and will close at midnight on August 31, 2023.

Prior to submitting the application to AMBAG, the applicant must receive approval to apply for funding from the applicant’s decisionͲmaking body or authorized signatory and agree to the reporting requirements. To the extent feasible, if the application proposes partnerships or further suballocation to jurisdictions, approval or authorization from the related decisionͲmaking bodies is encouraged. Applications will be reviewed by AMBAG staff on an ongoing basis and will be assessed for eligibility, nexus to the REAP 2.0 program objectives, and alignment with the RCGP and the State REAP 2.0 Guidelines.

Once applications are reviewed, AMBAG will provide an award letter to the subregional partner indicating whether the submitted projects are approved for funding, or a letter indicating how the application needs to be revised to be accepted. Projects that do not meet the funding criteria cannot be funded through REAP 2.0 RCGP. A jurisdiction or eligible applicant may revise its application or project scope to meet the funding criteria and resubmit the application up until the final due date.

Applications will be accepted until the final date to apply, which is by midnight on August 31, 2023.

REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 10 of 19 ends

Given the schedule requirements of the REAP 2.0 Guidelines to award suballocations, conditional award letters are expected within 60 days of a complete application received from an applicant for a suballocation (not inclusive of encumbrance or an executed Standard Agreement). 3b. Unallocated Funds
Remaining funds that are remaining unencumbered after the application deadline will be available for projects in the AMBAG Region through March 1, 2024 or at AMBAG’s discretion. By June 30, 2024 all REAP 2.0 funds must be fully encumbered.
3c. Funding Criteria
Funding applications are required to meet all three REAP 2.0 Project Objectives (Section 1 of the Guidelines) and shall be evaluated for funding based on the following criteria:
x Projects/programs proposed are eligible uses and activities (Section 2c.) x Provides a clear statement included demonstrating a nexus between each proposed project (or activity) and all three of the following state program objectives:
o Accelerating Infill Development that Facilitates Housing Supply, Choice, and Affordability; and
• Infill meets the definition of infill provided in the RCGP Guidance, Section 1, REAP 2.0 Program Guidelines, Definition of Infill; and
o Affirmatively Furthers Fair Housing; and
o Reduces Vehicle Miles Traveled
x Supports compliance with a jurisdiction’s housing element x Provides transformative planning and/or implementation activities x Targets funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities x Leads to substantial changes in land use patterns and travel behaviors x Supports California Planning Priorities. This may include promotion of infill development, supporting environmental.
x Scope of work and budget provided demonstrates an understanding of the work and financial considerations required to deliver the project
x Applicant thoroughly considered risks associated with delivering the project consistent with the scope of work and budget
x Applicant demonstrated realistic means for mitigating risk associated with delivering the project
REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 11 of 19 ends

Section 4 – Contract Administration
4a. Implementing Agencies
Jurisdictions or eligible applicants are required to serve as the implementing agency of the project/program proposed in the application. Implementing agencies must be entities eligible to enter into intergovernmental agreements and must demonstrate capacity to implement government grant administration tasks in a timely manner, including applications, contract execution and monitoring, funds management and transfer, and accounting and reporting, including any competitive subͲ contracting if applicable. The implementing agency cannot have any unresolved audit findings from prior government contracts and cannot be party to pending land use, housing, or environmental litigation which could impact the proposed activities.

The implementing agency will be responsible for developing the scope of work for the project or activity and leading the procurement process for obtaining consultants and/or resources. The implementing agency must also manage and administer the project, which includes tasks such as monitoring activity progress, reviewing tasks and deliverables, and reviewing and processing invoices. While partners may assist with these tasks, the implementing agency takes ultimate responsibility for successfully implementing the project/program according to this program guidance.
4b. Administrative Fee
None of a jurisdictions’ or eligible applicant’s allocation may be charged as administrative activities by the jurisdiction or eligible applicants. Tasks such as reviewing and processing project invoices, processing contract amendments, and preparing reports and metrics of project progress and completion are considered administrative activities. Activities such as developing scopes of work and requests for proposals (RFP), reviewing tasks and deliverables, and outreach with jurisdictions related to the project are considered programmatic and can be charged as a program activity. 4c. Obligation and Expenditure Period
Per the requirements of AB 140 all funds distributed under REAP must be obligated by June 30, 2024 and expended by June 30, 2026. To meet this deadline and receive reimbursement in alignment with REAP 2.0 guidelines, AMBAG will require all funds to be obligated by March 1, 2024, unless otherwise directed by AMBAG. RCGP funds that have not be obligated REAP 2.0 program after March 1, 2024 will be obligated at AMBAG’s discretion to other activities consistent with REAP

2.0 goals and objectives. All invoices associated with RCGP must be submitted to AMBAG no later than March 31, 2026. Invoices received by AMBAG after this date cannot be guaranteed for reimbursement.
4d. Reimbursement
All projects must submit invoices to AMBAG quarterly and a status report quarterly to receive reimbursement. Invoices must follow the requirements set forth in the Subregional Partnership REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 12 of 19 ends

contract and AMBAG’s regular invoicing procedures and must comply with applicable state and/or federal requirements. Expenditure reimbursement requires prior authorization of the eligible projects and activities, and AMBAG may be subject to repayment of REAP funds to HCD if it is found in breach of its agreement with HCD, which can occur if REAP funds are used for ineligible activities.

If AMBAG must repay REAP 2.0 funds to the state, AMBAG will require reimbursement from the eligible applicant or jurisdiction.

AMBAG will provide reimbursement only for costs as specified in the signed agreement(s) with the Jurisdictions or eligible applicants or designee. Costs incurred prior to the date of the grant agreement for the RCGP will not be reimbursed.
4e. Reporting Requirements
Consistent with AMBAG’s Overall Work Program reporting procedures, each jurisdictional partner will be required to provide a quarterly progress report and quarterly invoices to track and measure activity progress. Project progress will be measured according to the tasks, deliverables, costs, and timeline outlined in the jurisdiction’s MOU and agreement.

Timeline
Below is a schedule for the REAP 2.0 RCGP:
x April 2023: Released draft RCGP Guidelines for public review x June 2023: AMBAG adopts final RCGP Program guidelines and issues Notice of Funding Availability
x August 31, 2023: Final application and list of prioritized projects from eligible applicants due to AMBAG (unless due date is extended).
x September 2023: Grant applications are reviewed and evaluated x October/November: AMBAG approves applications and awards REAP 2.0 x December 2023 – February 2024: Execute grant agreements with REAP 2.0 awardees x March 1, 2024: Deadline to encumber REAP 2.0 funds
x March 31, 2026: All REAP projects and activities must be completed; final activity reports due to AMBAG; final project invoices due to AMBAG.

REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 13 of 19 ends

REGIONAL COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAMͲ SCORING CRITERIA & METHODOLOGY Introduction:

The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) REAP 2.0 Program framework is divided into three (3) categories:

1. Regional Competitive Grant Program (RCGP)

2. Local Suballocation Grant Program (LSGP)

AMBAG will assess REAP 2.0 applications received from eligible jurisdictions against a variety of criteria. To accomplish this task key AMBAG staff members will review and score applications as part of a Review Committee. The Review Committee will average the scores assigned by each review committee member to advance projects to the next step.

Projects recommended for funding in Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties must satisfy REAP 2.0 goals and objectives, including geographic equity and a blend of planning vs. implementation projects. The Review Committee will review the project scores and make recommendations to the AMBAG Board of Directors regarding geographic equity and the blend of project types. The AMBAG Board of Directors will review the work of the Review Committee, and ultimately approve projects.

Projects submitted for funding will be scored in three areas: REAP 2.0 Objectives, Primary Factors, and Secondary Factors each described below.

REAP 2.0 Objectives
The REAP 2.0 program has three major objectives that each project must satisfy. The scoring of applications will determine the degree to which each respective project satisfies each objective. The objectives include the following and questions that should be considered when scoring applications are provided.

Accelerating Infill Development that Facilitates Housing Supply, Choice, and Affordability

1. Does the project accelerate infill development near jobs and other key destinations to support housing choice and affordability that effectively reduces VMT and greenhouse gas emissions?

2. Is the project at an infill site and does it have affordability components that serve lowͲ and moderateͲincome households?

3. Is the project for affordable housing development programs – which may involve predevelopment costs (studies, land acquisition, entitlements, etc.), that accelerate REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 14 of 19 ends

the supply of longͲterm affordable housing for lower and moderateͲincome households?

4. Does the project go beyond existing commitments?
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

1. Does the project combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster equitable and inclusive communities?

3. Does the project support regional and local efforts to work toward ensuring all people have full and equal access to opportunities enabling them to lead healthy lives?

5. Is the project materially inconsistent with AFFH?

6. Geographic equity – will be addressed post initial scoring.

7. Does the project target funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities?

8. Unique equity priorities – weighting of scores addresses unique equity priorities.

Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

2. Is the project consistent with the region’s sustainable communities strategy (SCS) through:
a. Land use planning, polities, and investment strategies by infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice, and affordability and is serviced by existing and planned expansions of a multimodal transportation system; or REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 15 of 19 ends

b. Transportation planning, policies, and investment strategies by increasing travel options to homes, jobs, services, and other key destinations that provide, support, or enhance multimodal communities and reduce the number or length of vehicle trips?

The primary factors represent factors from the REAP 2.0 guidelines. In addition to providing a primary factor score, the application narratives associated with the primary factors will inform scoring for the REAP 2.0 objectives portion of the scoring matrix. Each primary factor is described below.

Housing Element Compliance
Does the project support compliance with a jurisdiction’s housing element? Transformative Planning and Implementation Activities
Does the project provide for housing, planning, or infrastructure investments supporting infill housing, and other actions that enable meeting housing goals that also result in per capita vehicle miles traveled reductions, including accelerating infill development, supporting residents through realizing multimodal communities, shifting travel behavior through reducing driving, and increasing transit ridership? Public Outreach

1. Did the proposed project arise from or go through a public process to solicit community input?

2. If this is a planning project, does the scope of work include a public process? Benefit to Disadvantaged Populations
Does the project target funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities?
Significant Beneficial Impacts

1. Does the project lead to substantial changes in land use patterns and travel behaviors, demonstrated by:
a. A rate of change compared to the baseline; or
b. The magnitude of impact relative to variables or targets; or c. The proportion of need achieved; or
d. The impact relative to past trends, policies, and practices? REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 16 of 19 ends

e. A significant regionwide benefit which is not small in scope. Project contributes to spreading REAP 2.0 projects throughout the region to ensure a regionwide benefit.

California Planning Priorities

1. Does the project support promotion of infill development and equity by rehabilitating, maintain, and improving existing infrastructure that supports infill development and appropriate reuse and redevelopment of previously developed, underutilized land that is presently served by transit, streets, water, sewer, and other essential services, particularly in underserved areas, and to preserve cultural and historic resources?

2. Does the project support protection of environmental and agricultural resources by protecting, preserving, and enhancing the state’s most valuable natural resources, including working landscapes such as farm, range, and forest lands, natural lands such as wetlands, watersheds, wildlife habitats, and other wildlands, recreation lands such as parks, trails, greenbelts, and other open space, and landscapes with locally unique features and areas identified by the state as deserving special protection?

3. Does the project encourage efficient development patterns by ensuring that any infrastructure associated with development, other than infill development, supporting new development that does all of the following:
a. Uses land efficiently; and
b. Is built adjacent to existing developed areas to the extent consistent with #2, above; and
c. Is project located in an area appropriately planned for growth; and d. Is served by adequate transportation and other essential utilities and services; and
e. Does the project minimize ongoing costs to taxpayers? Secondary Factors:

A variety of secondary factors can be considered in the scoring process. These are not tied directly to the REAP 2.0 program but demonstrate the thoroughness of the application and the effectiveness of the project.

Project Scope of Work and Budget
Is a project scope of work and budget provided that demonstrates an understanding of the work and financial considerations required to deliver the project? Project Risk Assessment

1. Has the applicant thoroughly considered risks associated with delivering the project consistent with the scope of work and budget?

2. Has the applicant demonstrated realistic means for mitigating risk associated with delivering the project?
REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 17 of 19 ends

Risks alone should not result in a deficiency, but should be considered if they are unmitigated, not fully understood, or unmanageable.

Local Support: Inclusion in Plan and Letters of Support Projects proposing to construct something typically are drawn from adopted plans. As planning projects are also an eligible use of REAP 2.0 funds, planning projects cannot be held to the same scrutiny. If a project proposing to construct something does not indicate inclusion in an adopted plan, this should be considered in the risk assessment and public outreach sections of the scoring matrix.

Letters of support are not an application requirement. They can influence scores to the extent that they add value to any other response.

Scoring:

Scores for each project will be assigned on a 1 to 100 basis. Scores from each committee member will be averaged and converted to project rankings. x 81Ͳ100: Exceptional evidence of meeting or exceeding requirements x 61Ͳ80: Strong evidence of meeting requirements
x 41Ͳ60: Suitable evidence of meeting requirements
x 21Ͳ40: Limited evidence of meeting requirements
x 1Ͳ20: Weak evidence of meeting requirements
Weighting
The scoring values for each factor were informed by public input received during the outreach process. Though this approach, public input will affect project selection.

Scoring Factor Weight
(%)
Max.

Score
REAP 2.0 Objectives

1. Accelerating Infill Development 25

2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 25

3. Reducing VMT 25
Subtotal 75
Primary Factors

1. Housing Element Compliance 3

2. Transformative Planning and Implementation
Activities
3 3. Public Outreach 3

4. Benefit to Disadvantage Populations 3

5. Significant Beneficial Impacts 3

6. California Planning Priorities 3
Subtotal 18
REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 18 of 19 ends

Secondary Factors

1. Scope of Work and Budget 4

2. Project Risk Assessment 3
Subtotal 7
Total 100
Subsequent Steps:

The project selection process will involve three steps. This document focuses primarily on the first step.

1. The scoring committee assigns scores to each application. The scores for each project are averaged.

2. The Review Committee will work to ensure geographic equity and the split between planning and capital projects is incorporated into the projects recommended for funding. The Review Committee will make a formal recommendation to the AMBAG Board of Directors.

3. The AMBAG Board of Directors will consider the work of the Review Committee and approve the projects selected for inclusion in the full application.

REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines

Page 19 of 19 ends

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-467, Version: 1
California Violence Intervention Prevention (CalVIP) Cohort 4 Budget Modification Approve a Resolution amending funding allocations approved by City Council (Resolution No. 22458 (N.C.S.)) for CalVIP Cohort 4.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/2/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2023
DEPARTMENT: LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FROM: KRISTAN LUNDQUIST, LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY

SERVICES DIRECTOR
BY: JOSE ARREOLA, COMMUNITY SAFETY ADMINISTRATOR
TITLE: CALIFORNIA VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PREVENTION
(CalVIP) COHORT 4 BUDGET MODIFICATION 1
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution amending funding allocations approved by City Council (Resolution No. 22458 (N.C.S.)) for CalVIP Cohort 4.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Salinas Community Engagement and Partnerships Division in partnership with Salinas Police Department, have adjusted the original budget to meet the needs of the program creating a surplus of funding which has been re-allocated to sub-grantees. The reallocation increase services and allows the money to remain in our community.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Salinas Community Engagement and Partnerships Division applies for and manages California Violence Intervention and Prevention (Cal VIP) grants as part of our comprehensive violence prevention strategy. Half of this grant award is passed through to Community Alliance for Safety and Peace (CASP) partners to provide critical violence intervention and prevention strategies. Through CASP we coordinate a violence reduction strategy following the Department ofJustice's Prevention, Intervention, Enforcement, and Re-Entry (PIER) approach. The strategy is shepherded by CASP, co-chaired by the Mayor of Salinas and District 1 County Supervisor.

Service gaps for high-risk youth are evident based on community input at strategy forums.

On August 23, 2022, City Council approved acceptance of funding from Board of State and Community Corrections, a three-year Cal VIP grant, to implement evidence-based and promising Page | 2
practice programs with our Salinas Police Department, Partners for Peace, the Natividad Foundation and Rancho Cielo Youth Campus with an evaluation component to be led by Monterey County Health Department. A change in staffing model for our Salinas Police Department funded programs has created a surplus in funding that we propose reallocating to subgrantees Partners for Peace and Rancho Cielo.

Salinas Police Department (SPD) will develop new Community outreach and juvenile diversion programs with the funding from the CalVIP grant. The Community Outreach Team, originally planned to be filled by sworn positions, will shift to civilian positions. The Team will be two Community Outreach Assistants and one Administrative Analyst I with the support of one officer in a limited capacity. The Team’s objective will remain the same, to reduce violence, prevent crime, improve community safety, support intervention activities/services, address quality of life issues, and build community trust. The Administrative Analyst I will work with staff to develop, implement, and maintain a juvenile diversion program like Advocating Responsible Choices (ARC) in Marina.

The civilian positions are less costly than the sworn positions resulting in a funding reduction from $1,356,356 to $1,106,356. We will reallocate the remaining $250,000 between two of our subgrantees using the budget modification process. We have already received pre-approval to submit the modification from the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC). Rancho Cielo will receive an additional $100,000 increasing their allocation to $623,383. Partners for Peace will receive an additional $150,000 increasing their allocation to $817,822. This reallocation does not increase or decrease the amount of our original award of $3,130,453 from the BSCC.

With the additional funding Partners for Peace (P4P) will add expand the Familia Adelante program which delivers an evidence-based/informed and family skills and parenting training program for parents/caregivers of high promise youth. P4P will recruit at least 70 families and a minimum of 140 in-class participants, for the Strengthening Families program. All programs and services are provided in English and Spanish.

Rancho Cielo will use additional funding to broaden their Tiny Home construction training program to include a Next Gen Healthy Modular Home. These homes are 845-square-foot, onebedroom, one-bathroom modular units designed to have a zero-carbon footprint and to operate off the grid using the latest sustainable technology and building materials, advanced water and energy efficiencies, and solar-powered roofing with backup Tesla battery capability. The home meets Hayward Score’s standards for a healthy home environment, including continuous fresh air, non-toxic materials, and state-of-the-art cork insulation.100% ofRanchoCielo students come from low-income families, 63% are on probation, 77% are Hispanic, 65% are male, and most are high school dropouts. The program will serve 30 youth each academic year. They will receive Page | 3
academic instruction to obtain a WASC-accredited high school diploma, soft job skills (problem solving, customer service, etc.), and wrap-around connections to health and human services.

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:

Approving the resolution will support the City Council’s Strategic Plan Goals of Public Safety and Youth and Seniors by bolstering the servicesto youth and familiesin the community,strengthening local partnerships and allow a rigorous evaluation of violence prevention programs.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Community Engagement and Partnerships Division of the Library and Community Services Department partnered with the Finance and Salinas Police Department to address the needed adjustments to the original budget. We worked with the Human Resource department to develop the new positions for the Police Department.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The established CalVIP appropriations totaling $3,130,453 remains the same and the funding has already been appropriated in the city budget with the 100% match requirement remaining at $3,130,453. There will be no additional fiscal impacts.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
1 RESOLUTION NO. _____ (N.C.S.)

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO CALIFORNIA VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PREVENTION (CalVIP) PROGRAM COHORT 4 BUDGET MODIFICATION 1
WHEREAS, On August 23, 2022, the Salinas City Council approved acceptance of funding from the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) for Cohort 4 of the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant in the amount of $3,130,453 for the grant period of July 1, 2022, through and including December 31, 2025; and WHEREAS, this amendment reduces funding for the Salinas Police Department by $250,000 from $1,356,356 to $1,106,356 to create a new Community Outreach Team and Juvenile Diversion program using civilian instead of sworn staff; and WHEREAS, the civilian positions are less costly than the sworn positions resulting in $250,000 in cost savings to be redistributed to two of our sub-grantees using the budget modification process.

WHEREAS, funding for the period of July 1, 2022 through and including December 31, 2025 will be modified to increase funding to Partners for Peace from $677,822 to $817,822, and Rancho Cielo Youth Campus from $523.383 to $623,383 to expand intervention and prevention programs; and
WHEREAS, the dollar for dollar match of $3,145,624 will be shared between the City of Salinas and sub-recipients, Partners for Peace, Natividad Foundation and Rancho Cielo Youth Campus;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the budget modification and authorizes the City Manager to execute necessary Professional Service Agreement Amendments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Salinas agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the Grant Agreement as set forth by BSCC; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the budget modification of funding from the Board of State and Community Corrections to increase funding to Partners for Peace by $150,000 and Rancho Cielo by $100,000 while reducing grant funds for the Salinas Police Department by $250,000.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 8
th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:
2 _________________________
______________________
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#23-468, Version: 1
Removal of an Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalk at Elvee Drive and relocation of an Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalk at East Alvin Drive at Solano Way
Approve a Resolution approving the removal of the uncontrolled marked crosswalks at Elvee Drive and the relocation of the uncontrolled marked crosswalk at East Alvin Drive at Solano Way.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/2/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS, TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY; ADRIANA ROBLES, CITY ENGINEER

GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, ASSISTANT ANGINEER
TITLE: REMOVAL OF THE UNCONTROLLED MARKED CROSSWALK

AT ELVEE DRIVE AND RELOCATION OF AN UNCONTROLLED

MARKED CROSSWALK AT EAST ALVIN DRIVE AT SOLANO
WAY
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution approving the removal of the uncontrolled marked crosswalk at Elvee Drive and the relocation of an uncontrolled marked crosswalk at East Alvin Drive at Solano Way.

BACKGROUND:

In 2014, the City of Salinas adopted Crosswalk Policy Guidelines (Attachment 1) to prescribe a formal and transparent process for consideration of marked crosswalks (Resolution No. 20711).

The Crosswalk Policy Guidelines provides a flowchart for determining crosswalk locations; where crosswalks with special treatments, such as high-visibility crosswalks, flashing beacons and other special features, should be employed; and where crosswalks should not be marked due to safety concerns resulting from volume, speed, or sight distance issues.

The Crosswalk Policy Guidelines establish that the City should only mark crosswalk locations where there is sufficient crossing demand, and where crosswalks are spaced at least 300 feet apart.

The guidelines recommend that crosswalk locations should provide adequate sight lines so that drivers can feasibly stop in time. City staff have reevaluated the crosswalk at Elvee Drive and determined that its location does not provide adequate sight lines (Attachment 2) and maintaining the crosswalk may result in a liability for the City. Therefore, staff recommends removal of the crosswalk consistent with the established policy.

Additionally, a proposed development on East Alvin Drive (APN 261-661-011) is planning to install a driveway which would conflict with the existing crosswalk at East Alvin Drive at Solano Way. In accordance with the Crossway Policy Guidelines, a traffic study revealed that less than Page | 2
20 pedestrians cross per hour at this uncontrolled marked crosswalk location. Removing the markings does not prohibit pedestrians from crossing.

Consistent with California Vehicle Code Policy, a 30-day notice has been posted at the crosswalks indicating the consideration for removal. No written public comments have been received by City staff at the time of this report.

Traffic and Transportation Commission
A recommendation for the removal of the uncontrolled marked crosswalks at Elvee Drive, and East Alvin Drive at Solano Way was presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its July 13, 2023 meeting. The Commission voted 2-3 to recommend to Council the removal of the uncontrolled marked crosswalks at Elvee Drive, and East Alvin Drive at Solano Way.

Commissioners Davis and Howell voted in support of the recommendation and Commissioners Canseco, Cox and Quigley voted against the recommendation.

Commissioners Cox and Canseco voiced concerns about removal of the crosswalk at East Alvin Drive given the proximity of the school. As a response to the commissioners’ concerns, staff has revised the recommendation for the East Alvin Drive to relocate the crosswalk to the east side curb at Solano Way to not conflict with the proposed improvements. (See Attachment 3).

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Removal and relocation of an uncontrolled marked crosswalk on City street is exempt under CEQA 15301, Class 1(c) since the actions consists of operation and minor alteration of an existing City street.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This action supports the Council’s initiative of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability and Public Safety.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There will be no impact to the City’s General Fund. The crosswalks will be removed and relocated as part of the offsite improvements for private development which will be required as conditions of approval.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1: City of Salinas Crosswalk Policy Guidelines Attachment 2: Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalk at Elvee Drive Attachment 3: Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalk at East Alvin Drive at Solano Way 1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF THE UNCONTROLLED

CROSSWALK AT ELVEE DRIVE AND RELOCATION OF AN UNCONTROLLED

CROSSWALK AT EAST ALVIN DRIVE AT SOLANO WAY
WHEREAS, at its March 3, 2018 meeting, the City Council approved the Salinas Crosswalk Policy meeting that serves as a guideline to provide a uniform application of crosswalks throughout the City (Resolution No. 20711); and
WHEREAS, at its July 13, 2023 meeting, the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted 2-3 against recommending to Council to approve the removal of the uncontrolled marked crosswalks at Elvee Drive and East Alvin Drive. Commissioners voiced concerns about removing the crosswalk at East Alvin Drive given its proximity to the school; and WHEREAS, staff revised the proposed recommendation to recommend the relocation of the crosswalk at East Alvin to the east curb of Solano Way; and WHEREAS, removal and relocation of the crosswalks at Elvee Drive and East Alvin Drive at Solano Way, respectively, will the responsibility of the adjoining private development projects and shall be identified as conditions of approval for offsite improvements; and WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that the removal of the uncontrolled marked crosswalks at Elvee Drive and East Alvin Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301, Class 1). The project consists of the operation, repair, or minor alteration of public streets involving no expansion of use. There would be no significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves the removal of the uncontrolled marked crosswalk at Elvee Drive and relocation of an uncontrolled marked crosswalk at East Alvin Drive at Solano Way.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 8th day of August 8, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
Submitted to: Submitted by: Fehr & Peers
160 W. Santa Clara Street
Suite 675
San Jose, CA 95113
408 278 1700
June, 2014
City of Salinas

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
Table of Contents

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

2. Background and Context .............................................................................................................................. 2 Policy Context ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 General Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Pedestrian Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Existing Marked Crosswalk Inventory .......................................................................................................................... 5

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

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

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

6. Education, Enforcement, and Encouragement Programs......................................................................42 Appendices
Appendix A: Citywide Crosswalk Inventory ............................................................................................................................. 44 Appendix B: Pedestrian Level of Service Calculations ......................................................................................................... 45 Appendix C: Pedestrian Collision Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 48 Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
List of Figures
Figure 1: City of Salinas Map ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Marked Crosswalk Placement Flowchart ............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations ..................................................................... 12 Figure 4: Salinas Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions, 2005-2010 ............................................................................................. 50 Figure 5: Salinas Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions Resulting in Injuries and/or Fatalities, 2005-2010.................. 52 Figure 6: Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions for School-Age Children Occurring within ¼-Mile of Schools ......... 57 Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
List of Tables
Table 1: Recommendations for Installing Marked Crosswalks and Other Needed Pedestrian Improvements at Uncontrolled Locations .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 Table 2: Application of Enhanced Treatments for Uncontrolled Locations ................................................................ 17 Table 3: Uncontrolled Crossings: Geometric Treatments .................................................................................................. 18 Table 4: Uncontrolled Crossings: Striping and Signage ..................................................................................................... 21 Table 5: Uncontrolled Crossings: Beacon, Lighting, and Signal Treatments .............................................................. 23 Table 6: Controlled Intersections: Geometric Treatments ............................................................................................... 29 Table 7: Controlled Intersections: Striping and Signage .................................................................................................. 34 Table 8: Controlled Intersections: Signal Hardware and Operational Measures ...................................................... 36 Table 9: Pedestrian LOS Calculations ....................................................................................................................................... 46 Table 10: Top Pedestrian-Vehicle Collision Locations, Salinas, 2005-2010............................................................... 49 Table 11: Top Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions Locations, Injury or Fatality, 2005-2010.......................................... 51 Table 12: Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) for Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions in Salinas, 2005-2010................ 53 Table 13: Age Ranges for Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions in Salinas, 2005-2010...................................................... 55

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLICY CONTEXT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
5 EXISTING MARKED CROSSWALK INVENTORY
An up-to-date inventory of existing pedestrian facilities is an important and efficient approach to identify gaps and deficiencies in the existing pedestrian network. The City maintains this inventory in a computer aided drafting (CAD) database, and applies it to citywide Suggested Routes to Schools maps for distribution to local schools in the City. This section summarizes the existing marked crosswalk inventory within Salinas, current as of April 2013. Figure 1 presents a map of the City of Salinas.

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

W Blanco Rd
Espinosa Rd
Williams Rd
N Main St
E Alisal St
E Boronda Rd
S Davis Rd
Natividad Rd
San Juan Grade Rd
Harris Rd
E Laurel Dr
N Sanborn Rd
Boronda Rd
Russell Rd
W Market St
E Blanco Rd
Freedom Pkwy
Constitution Blvd
W Laurel Dr
S Sanborn Rd
E Bernal Dr
Hatton Ave
Loyola Dr
Hilltown Rd
Spreckels Ln
E Boronda Rd
4th St
Hilltown Rd
Main St
Del Monte Ave
Hartnell A&M College
East Campus
Alisal High School
Alvarez High School
Hartnell College
Salinas
High
School
La Paz
Middle School
El Sausal
Middle School
Gavilan View
Middle School
Palma
High School
Washington
Middle School
North Salinas
High School
Mount Toro
High School
Sherwood
Elementary
School
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Harden Middle School
Bardin
Elementary
School
Santa Rita
Elementary School
La Joya
Elementary School
Boronda
Elementary
School
Fremont
Elementary
School
Sancgez
Elementary
School
Henry F Kammann
Elementary School
Rocca Barton
Elementary School
Los Padres
Elementary
School
Salinas Christian School
Notre Dame
High School
Alisal Community
Elemementary School
Monterey Park
Elementary School
El Gabilan
Elementary School
Nativadad
Elementary
School
Mission Park
Elementary School
University Park
Elementary School
Madonna del Sasso
Elemementary School
Loma Vista
Elementary School
Roosevelt
Elementary School
John E Steinbeck
Elemementary School
Sacred Heart
Elementary School
Frank Paul
Elementary School
Laurel Wood
Elementary School
City of Salinas
Figure 1 Path: N:\Projects\_SJ11_Projects\SJ11_1252_Crosswalk_Policy_Guidelines\Graphics\GIS\Fig_1_City_of_Salinas.mxd School
Park
0 0.5 1
Miles
F
£¤101
£¤101
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
7 3. CROSSWALK FUNDAMENTALS
Pedestrian crossing and right-of-way laws vary state to state, and are often a source of driver or pedestrian uncertainty and confusion for when crossing is legal. This section outlines the types of crosswalks, where crossing the street is legal in California, and the steps the City should take in identifying locations for marked crosswalks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action will result in
Within one month, begin
Traffic Investigation
process, including staff
field visit
Action will result in
Action may result in
Action may result in
City Staff receives request for a marked
crosswalk installation or improvement
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
12 Figure 3: Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations Note: Where no engineering action is recommended in Chart 2, consider applicable education and enforcement efforts. if yes
if no
if yes
if no
if yes
if no
if yes
if no
if yes
if no
feasible
infeasible
20 pedestrians per hour
(in any two hours, not
necessarily consecutive)
cross at the location
Location along a suggested route to
school path or which connects two
pedestrian generators such as a
school, park, bus stop, or hospital
expected to generate pedestrians on a
regular basis
Nearest appropriately
marked or protected
crosswalk is at least 300
feet or more away
Insufficient need
to justify a
marked crosswalk
Low speed (posted or prima
facie 25 MPH), two-lane roadway
Pedestrians can be easily
seen from a feasible
stopping sight distance
Direct pedestrians
to the nearest
marked or
protected crosswalk
Can the sight distance
obstruction be removed or
the speed limit lowered?
Use Salinas Pedestrian
Toolbox and engineering
judgment to determine
treatment options
Direct pedestrians to the
nearest marked crosswalk
or consider installing stop
sign, signal, or grade
separation
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
13 4. UNCONTROLLED CROSSING ENHANCEMENT TOOLBOX
This section presents best practices for the installation of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections and mid-block locations. Uncontrolled crossings require additional consideration during planning and design since traffic signals and stop signs are not provided to require motorists to stop – they must recognize the pedestrian and yield accordingly. Thus, providing appropriate enhancements to improve the visibility and safety of pedestrians crossing the street at an uncontrolled location is critical.

CROSSWALK SAFETY RESEARCH
Several studies of pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossings have been completed, from which conflicting research had emerged in the past. Studies conducted in San Diego in the 1970s showed that pedestrian collision risk at marked,
uncontrolled crosswalks was greater than at unmarked crossings.

This led many cities to remove marked crosswalks, as they were suspected of providing a false sense of security that drivers would yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. However, a more recent study2 by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) comprehensively reviewed crossing safety at 1,000 marked and 1,000 matching unmarked crosswalks in 30 U.S. cities, controlling for site context factors. The study concluded that site factors related to pedestrian-involved collisions included pedestrian average daily traffic (ADT), vehicle ADT, number of lanes, median type, and the region of the U.S. At uncontrolled locations on two-lane roads and multi-lane roads with ADT below 12,000 vehicles, FHWA found that the presence of a marked crosswalk alone, compared with an unmarked crosswalk, made no
statistically significant difference in the pedestrian crash rate.

However, on multi-lane roads with an ADT of greater than 12,000 vehicles (without a raised median) and 15,000 vehicles (with a raised median) the presence of a marked crosswalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A calculation of Pedestrian Level of Service forms the basis for the treatment identification. Pedestrian Level of Service is the average delay experienced by pedestrians as they are waiting to cross the street.

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

3 California MUTCD, Section 3B. 18.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
17 TABLE 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 3:

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

Therefore, reducing the number of travel
lanes minimizes the amount of time that
pedestrians are in the crosswalk. More
travel lanes than necessary can also
increase vehicle travel speeds; research
has shown that the severity of
pedestrian collisions increases with
vehicle travel speed. Where fewer travel
lanes are not possible, travel lanes can
be narrowed to as little as nine feet,
especially left- and right-turn pockets.

Level 1
$20/LF4
6-2. Removal of Sight-Distance
Obstructions
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
If objects impede sight-distance, this
may result in an unsafe condition where
motorists and pedestrians are unable to
see each other. Items such as parked
cards, signage, landscaping, fencing, and
street furniture should be placed in a
location that will not obstruct sight
distance.

Level 1 $150/EA5

4 Cost includes removal of existing pavement markings and repainting. Assumes existing curbs are to remain as is. 5 Item removed is anticipated to be no larger than a sign and post.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
19 TABLE 3:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
6-3. Pedestrian Refuge Island
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Raised islands are placed in the center of
the roadway separating opposing lanes
of traffic with cutouts or ramps for
accessibility along the pedestrian path.

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

Level 1 $130/LF6
6-4. Curb Extensions
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Curb extensions extend the curb and
sidewalks further into the roadway,
shortening the length of the crosswalk.

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

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

Level 1 $140/LF7

6 Cost includes new curb and concrete barrier. Assumes a 6 foot median. 7 Cost includes removal of existing curb, new curb, new sidewalk, and new bollards. Cost does not include curb ramps.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
20 TABLE 3:

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

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

Level 2 $4,000/EA
6-7. Pedestrian Overpass/Underpass
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
This measure consists of a pedestrian or
pedestrian/bicycle overpass or
underpass of a roadway. It provides
complete separation from motor vehicle
traffic, normally where no other
pedestrian facility is available, and
connects off-road trails and paths across
major barriers. Overpasses and
underpasses should be used as a
measure of last resort because of their
cost and barriers to their
effective/efficient use, with
topographical and desire line
considerations influencing their design.

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

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

8 Same materials as 6-3
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
21 TABLE 4:

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

Various striping patterns are available.

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

Level 1 $6/Ft
7-2. Advanced Yield Line
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Advanced yield lines, often referred to
as “sharks teeth”, should be striped at all
marked, uncontrolled crosswalks on
multi-lane roadways. They should be
placed 20-30 feet in front of the
crosswalk. Their intention is to identify
where vehicles should stop when
yielding to a pedestrian to maintain
adequate sight lines.

Level 1 $100/EA
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
22 TABLE 4:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
7-3. Advanced Warning Signs
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
High-visibility yellow or fluorescentyellow-green (FYG) signs are posted at crossings to increase the visibility of a
pedestrian crossing.

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

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
23 TABLE 5:

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

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

Level 2 $50,000/EA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
26 Sacramento include best practices for directional curb ramp design (see drawing T-77 in Transportation document at: http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/Utilities/Resources/Specs-andDrawings)  Eliminate free right-turn slip lanes, where feasible, and mitigate for pedestrian safety where they remain
 Locate bus stops on the far-side of the intersection (or in front of mid-block crossings)  Minimize cycle lengths
 Reduce prevalence or eliminate permitted signal phasing where pedestrian crossings exist  Provide pedestrian signal heads for all crossings at signalized intersections  Provide adequate pedestrian clearance intervals (crossing time) at signalized intersections Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
27 Source: Standard drawings for the City of Sacramento Department of Transportation, 2007 (http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/Utilities/Resources/Specs-and-Drawings) Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
28 ENHANCED CROSSING TREATMENTS
At high volume pedestrian crossing locations or other areas designated by the City as pedestrian zones, the City may provide additional crosswalk enhancements at controlled intersections. These treatments provide improve drivers’ awareness of pedestrians by slowing traffic through geometric changes, providing signal timing or phasing modifications, or enhancing striping or signing to improve visibility.

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

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

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

Preferred $130/LF13

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
30 TABLE 6:

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

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

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

Preferred $4,000/ea

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

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

Preferred $25,000/EA15

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

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

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

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

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

Enhanced $140/LF17

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
33 TABLE 6:

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

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

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
34 TABLE 7:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Cost
10-1. Marked Crosswalks
Image Source: Google Maps
Marking a crosswalk across all
approaches of an intersection
improves pedestrian accessibility. At
a four-way intersection, a closed
crosswalk forces pedestrians to cross
via three crosswalks instead of one.

Crosswalks on all approaches can
often be accommodated without a
significant impact to traffic signal
operations.

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

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

Preferred $7.50/LF

19 Cost includes both lines of crossing.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
35 TABLE 7:

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

Enhanced $6/Ft
10-4. Textured Pavement or Colored
Crosswalks
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Textured pavement can be used in
crosswalks or in intersections as an
aesthetic enhancement. Because of
its texture, it may also calm traffic by
slowing vehicles before they cross
an intersection. It can also make
crosswalks more visible. Textured
pavement can be made of brick or,
alternatively, both concrete and
asphalt can be stamped to look like
brick or stone. At controlled
locations, standard crosswalk
striping should be provided in
addition to the textured pavement.

A smooth, non-slip surface is
preferable.

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

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

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

Preferred $500/EA

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

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

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

Preferred N/A22

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

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

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

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

Enhanced $2,500/EA

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
39 TABLE 8:

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

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

They demonstrate that an intersection is
meant to serve both vehicles and
pedestrians. In general, pedestrian recall
should be used if pedestrians actuate a
“Walk” signal 75 percent of the time
during three or more hours per day.

Recall can be used 24-hours a day or
during peak hours for pedestrians (in
which case push buttons should
continue to be provided).

Enhanced N/A24

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

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level Cost
11-8. No Right Turn on Red
Image Source: FHWA
When attempting to turn right on red,
motorists must look left to see if the
road is clear; motorists often do not look
right before turning and may not see
pedestrians to their right. Restricting
right turns on red can reduce conflicts
between vehicles and pedestrians.
“Blank out” turn restriction signs (see
11-9 below) are more effective than
conventional “No Right Turn on Red”
signs. “No Right Turn on Red” signs that
specify time-of-day restrictions or
“When Pedestrians are Present” are
confusing to motorists and are often
disregarded.

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

Enhanced $2,00026

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

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

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

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

27 Cost includes installation
28 Cost includes pole
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
42 6. EDUCATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND ENCOURAGEMENT

PROGRAMS
The prior chapters in this policy describe engineering treatments to improve pedestrian safety and enhance walkability. Engineering, however, is only one aspect of a comprehensive pedestrian safety strategy. Education, enforcement, and encouragement, are also crucial, as outlined in the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan. This section presents best practices for education, encouragement, and enforcement components of pedestrian safety programs that may be considered to supplement the Crosswalk Policy Guidelines.

EDUCATION
The following is a list of pedestrian safety practices for educating pedestrians and motorists about safe and lawful behavior:
 Website – provide informational materials relating to pedestrian safety  Videos – post information such as public service announcements to the City’s website  Community outreach events – provide opportunities for pedestrian education such as Mayor’s night out events
 Pamphlets – make informational materials available through the City  Student group involvement – promote pedestrian safety by involving and educating student groups
 Street/Bus Stop/School Banners – place advertisements in high activity pedestrian areas  Yard Signs – communicate roadway conditions to motorists and pedestrians  Strategic partnerships – partner with groups such as American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) to promote pedestrian safety
 Local media campaigns – involve local media in pedestrian safety campaigns  Classroom curricula – collaborate with local school districts to develop pedestrian safety curricula for schools
 Structured skills practice – develop a program that trains pedestrians in safe behavior  Games, coloring books, etc. – develop or provide fun and educational materials for children Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
43 ENFORCEMENT
The following is a list of pedestrian safety practices for enforcing pedestrian and vehicular right-of-way laws:
 Officer training courses – provides law enforcement with full understanding of pedestrian laws and safety practices
 Traffic complaint hotline – provides a method for citizens to alert the City when a public facility is of concern, such as inoperable traffic signal
 Community enforcement – provides a mechanism for community members to help enforce traffic laws, such as a radar gun checkout program
 Adult school crossing guards – provides a trained adult to help pedestrians cross the street  Pedestrian decoys – target enforcement activities with a staged pedestrian or motorist, targeting motorists or pedestrians who do not comply with traffic laws  Partnership with media, stakeholders, and City departments – involve various stakeholders in pedestrian education campaigns and efforts

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

CITYWIDE CROSSWALK INVENTORY
45 APPENDIX B:

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

TABLE 9:

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

Pedestrian crossing distance (ft)
Pedestrian crossing distance represents the distance that a pedestrian would need to cross before reaching either the far curb or a median refuge island. The distance would be between the near and far curbs if a painted or raised median refuge island is not present, or to the median refuge island if the island is present. Note if a parking stall is present, its width should be included in the crossing distance measurement. Crossing distance rather than number of lanes was selected for the procedure so that the extra time needed by a pedestrian to cross bike lanes, twoway left-turn lanes, wide lanes, etc. could be considered.

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

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

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

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

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

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
47 TABLE 9:

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

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

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

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

Total pedestrian delay (ped-h)
Total pedestrian delay (Dp) uses the average pedestrian delay (dp) and multiplies that value by the number of pedestrians (Vp) to determine the total pedestrian delay for the approach. Dp = (dp × Vp)/3,600
Source: NCHRP Report 562, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf 48 APPENDIX C:

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

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

The locations of pedestrian collisions were mapped to illustrate the pedestrian-vehicle collisions throughout Salinas. A total of 363 vehicle-pedestrian collisions occurred in Salinas between 2005 and 2010. Figure 4 shows the number and location of collisions at intersections throughout Salinas from 2005-2010. Table 10 lists the locations with the highest number of vehicle-pedestrian collisions Citywide.

As shown, the intersection of N. Sanborn Road and Garner Avenue has the most frequent pedestrian collisions, with 14 occurring between 2005 and 2010.29
TABLE 10:

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

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

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

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

W Blanco Rd
Espinosa Rd
Williams Rd
N Main St
E Alisal St
E Boronda Rd
S Davis Rd
Natividad Rd
San Juan Grade Rd
Harris Rd
E Laurel Dr
N Sanborn Rd
Boronda Rd
Russell Rd
W Market St
E Blanco Rd
Freedom Pkwy
Constitution Blvd
W Laurel Dr
S Sanborn Rd
E Bernal Dr
Hatton Ave
Loyola Dr
Hilltown Rd
Spreckels Ln
E Boronda Rd
4th St
Hilltown Rd
Main St
Del Monte Ave
Hartnell A&M College
East Campus
Alisal High School
Alvarez High School
Hartnell College
Salinas
High
School
La Paz
Middle School
El Sausal
Middle School
Gavilan View
Middle School
Palma
High School
Washington
Middle School
North Salinas
High School
Mount Toro
High School
Sherwood
Elementary
School
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Harden Middle School
Bardin
Elementary
School
Santa Rita
Elementary School
La Joya
Elementary School
Boronda
Elementary
School
Fremont
Elementary
School
Sancgez
Elementary
School
Henry F Kammann
Elementary School
Rocca Barton
Elementary School
Los Padres
Elementary
School
Salinas Christian School
Notre Dame
High School
Alisal Community
Elemementary School
Monterey Park
Elementary School
El Gabilan
Elementary School
Nativadad
Elementary
School
Mission Park
Elementary School
University Park
Elementary School
Madonna del Sasso
Elemementary School
Loma Vista
Elementary School
Roosevelt
Elementary School
John E Steinbeck
Elemementary School
Sacred Heart
Elementary School
Frank Paul
Elementary School
Laurel Wood
Elementary School
Salinas Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions, 2005-2010
Figure 4
Path: N:\Projects\_SJ11_Projects\SJ11_1252_Crosswalk_Policy_Guidelines\Graphics\GIS\Fig_2_Collisions.mxd One Collisions
Two Collisions
Three Collisions
Four Collisions
Five or More Collisions
School
Park
0 0.5 1
Miles
F
£¤101
£¤101
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
51 Figure 5 shows the higher severity pedestrian-vehicle collisions, including those with pedestrian injuries and fatalities, and Table 11 lists the locations with the highest number of fatalities and injuries. Similar to Table 1, N. Sanborn Road and Garner Avenue has the highest frequency of pedestrian-vehicle collisions, with 14 injuries and two fatalities occurring between 2005 and 2010.

TABLE 11:

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

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

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

W Blanco Rd
Espinosa Rd
Williams Rd
N Main St
E Alisal St
E Boronda Rd
S Davis Rd
Natividad Rd
San Juan Grade Rd
Harris Rd
E Laurel Dr
N Sanborn Rd
Boronda Rd
Russell Rd
W Market St
E Blanco Rd
Freedom Pkwy
Constitution Blvd
W Laurel Dr
S Sanborn Rd
E Bernal Dr
Hatton Ave
Loyola Dr
Hilltown Rd
Spreckels Ln
E Boronda Rd
4th St
Hilltown Rd
Main St
Del Monte Ave
Hartnell A&M College
East Campus
Alisal High School
Alvarez High School
Hartnell College
Salinas
High
School
La Paz
Middle School
El Sausal
Middle School
Gavilan View
Middle School
Palma
High School
Washington
Middle School
North Salinas
High School
Mount Toro
High School
Sherwood
Elementary
School
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Harden Middle School
Bardin
Elementary
School
Santa Rita
Elementary School
La Joya
Elementary School
Boronda
Elementary
School
Fremont
Elementary
School
Sancgez
Elementary
School
Henry F Kammann
Elementary School
Rocca Barton
Elementary School
Los Padres
Elementary
School
Salinas Christian School
Notre Dame
High School
Alisal Community
Elemementary School
Monterey Park
Elementary School
El Gabilan
Elementary School
Nativadad
Elementary
School
Mission Park
Elementary School
University Park
Elementary School
Madonna del Sasso
Elemementary School
Loma Vista
Elementary School
Roosevelt
Elementary School
John E Steinbeck
Elemementary School
Sacred Heart
Elementary School
Frank Paul
Elementary School
Laurel Wood
Elementary School
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
Salinas Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions
Resulting in Injuries and/or Fatalities, 2005-2010
Figure 5
Path: N:\Projects\_SJ11_Projects\SJ11_1252_Crosswalk_Policy_Guidelines\Graphics\GIS\Fig_3_Collisions_Injury_Fatality.mxd 0 0.5 1
Miles F
£¤101
£¤101
Pedestrian Injuries
One Collision
Two Collisions
Three Collisions
Four or More Collisions
kj One Fatality
kj Two Fatalities
School
Park
Pedestrian Fatalities
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
53 Primary Collision Factor
Table 12 lists the most common primary collisions factors (PCFs) for pedestrian-vehicle collisions in Salinas. The top three PCFs were pedestrian right-of-way violation (wherein the motorist is at fault), pedestrian violation (wherein the pedestrian is at fault), and unsafe speed (wherein the vehicle’s speed is the primary cause of the collision). In total, motorists are at fault for over 50 percent of pedestrian collisions. Pedestrian violations account for approximately one-third of collision factors.

TABLE 12:

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

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

Age Statistics
TABLE 13:

AGE RANGES FOR PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE COLLISIONS IN SALINAS, 2005-2010 Age Range % of Total
0-15 28%
16-30 29%
31-45 18%
46-60 17%
61+ 9%
Source: SWITRS 2005-2010, Fehr & Peers, 2013
Table 13 provides a summary of pedestrian age data for collisions in Salinas. The ages are grouped in five categories: ages 0-15, ages 15-30, ages 31-45, ages 46-60, and ages 61 and above. The greatest 303
34 21 3 1 1
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Clear Cloudy Raining Not Stated Wind Other
Source: SWITRS, 2005 - 2010
Chart 3: Pedestrian Collisions by Weather
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
56 proportion of collisions involved the age group 16-30, which accounted for 29 percent of the collisions, followed closely by the age group 0-15, which accounted for 28 percent of pedestrian collisions. Together, pedestrians under 30 years of age account for over half of the pedestrians involved in collisions.

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

SUMMARY
While walking accounts for only a small percentage of trips,30 according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), pedestrian fatalities represented 13 percent of total fatalities in traffic crashes in 2010 (“Traffic Safety Facts: 2010 Data,” 2012). This implies that pedestrians are over represented in collisions compared to the number of trips made by walking. Pedestrian collisions are also known to be underreported, since those collisions with no injury or fatality often go without a police report and are, thus, not added to the City or SWITRS databases for analysis.

Collision data for the City of Salinas was obtained from the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) between January 2005 and December 2010, the five (5) most recent years of available data at the time this report was authored. Based on this data, 363 vehicle-pedestrian collisions occurred in Salinas between 2005 and 2010. The most common primary collision factors included pedestrian right-of-way violation (wherein the vehicle is at fault), pedestrian violation (wherein the pedestrian is at fault), and unsafe speed (wherein the vehicle’s speed is the primary cause of the collision).

Weekends (Fridays through Sundays) had higher collision frequency, on average, than weekdays; however, collision frequency tended to follow peak vehicle commute times – 8:00 am, 4:00 pm, and 6:00 pm have the highest number of pedestrian collisions.

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

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

W Blanco Rd
Espinosa Rd
Williams Rd
N Main St
E Alisal St
E Boronda Rd
S Davis Rd
Natividad Rd
San Juan Grade Rd
Harris Rd
E Laurel Dr
N Sanborn Rd
Boronda Rd
Russell Rd
W Market St
E Blanco Rd
Freedom Pkwy
Constitution Blvd
W Laurel Dr
S Sanborn Rd
E Bernal Dr
Hatton Ave
Loyola Dr
Hilltown Rd
Spreckels Ln
E Boronda Rd
4th St
Hilltown Rd
Main St
Del Monte Ave
Hartnell A&M College
East Campus
Alisal High School
Alvarez High School
Hartnell College
Salinas
High
School
La Paz
Middle School
El Sausal
Middle School
Gavilan View
Middle School
Palma
High School
Washington
Middle School
North Salinas
High School
Mount Toro
High School
Sherwood
Elementary
School
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Harden Middle School
Bardin
Elementary
School
Santa Rita
Elementary School
La Joya
Elementary School
Boronda
Elementary
School
Fremont
Elementary
School
Sancgez
Elementary
School
Henry F Kammann
Elementary School
Rocca Barton
Elementary School
Los Padres
Elementary
School
Salinas Christian School
Notre Dame
High School
Alisal Community
Elemementary School
Monterey Park
Elementary School
El Gabilan
Elementary School
Nativadad
Elementary
School
Mission Park
Elementary School
University Park
Elementary School
Madonna del Sasso
Elemementary School
Loma Vista
Elementary School
Roosevelt
Elementary School
John E Steinbeck
Elemementary School
Sacred Heart
Elementary School
Frank Paul
Elementary School
Laurel Wood
Elementary School
Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions for School-Age
Children Occurring within ¼-mile of Schools
Figure 6
Path: N:\Projects\_SJ11_Projects\SJ11_1252_Crosswalk_Policy_Guidelines\Graphics\GIS\Fig_4_Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions for School-Age Children.mxd Collision with No Injury
Collision with One Injury
Collision with Two Injuries
Collision with Three Injuries
School
Park
0 0.5 1
Miles
F
£¤101
£¤101
Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions for
School-Age Children Occurring
within ¼-mile of Schools

UNCONTROLLED MARKED CROSSWALK AT ELVEE DRIVE ELVEE DRIVE PROPOSED CROSSWALK

ELVEE DRIVE REMOVAL LOCATION
HWY 101 TO WORK ST
TO S SANBORN RD SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40' 80'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F ORN AI N
© 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2023 Maxar ©
UNCONTROLLED MARKED CROSSWALK AT EAST ALVIN DRIVE AT SOLANO WAY 0 30' 60' SCALE: 1"=30' S A L I N A SC A L I F O R N I A N EXISTING CROSSWALK AND RRFB

SOLANO WAY EAST ALVIN DRIVE PROPOSED CROSSWALK AND RRFB RELOCATION City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-469, Version: 1
2-Hour Parking Zone Along West Gabilan Street Between Church Street and Lincoln Avenue Sign Plan Approve a Resolution establishing 2-hour parking zone designations along West Gabilan Street between Church Street and Lincoln Avenue.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/2/2023
powered by Legistar™

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ADRIANA ROBLES, CITY ENGINEER

GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: 2-HOUR PARKING ZONE ALONG WEST GABILAN STREET

BETWEEN CHURCH STREET AND LINCOLN AVENUE

SIGN PLAN
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution establishing the proposed 2-hour parking zone designations along West Gabilan Street between Church Street and Lincoln Avenue.

BACKGROUND:

City Hall is planned to be under construction this summer for emergency roof repair and asbestos abatement. While City Hall is under construction, the front entrance will be closed to the public and residents will have to enter through the back entrance to do business. Currently the on-street parking in front of the City Hall main entrance located on Lincoln Avenue has 2-hour and 20- minute time restrictions to facilitate parking turnover. Once construction begins, it is anticipated visitors will want to park in areas closest to the back entrance. Downtown parking demand is generally high during business hours and where there is limited off-street parking opportunities.

There are existing time limited parking zones throughout Downtown in an effort to create a reasonable turnover of parking spaces where parking demand is high, as shown in Attachment 1.

City staff recommends the designation of 2-hour parking zones along West Gabilan Street between Church Street and Lincoln Avenue, to prevent long term parking and to facilitate parking turnover.

West Gabilan Street extends from Capitol Street to Main Street, and it is a two-lane local street approximately 44-feet wide. The block between Lincoln Avenue and Church Street is roughly 240 feet long and currently parking is generally permitted on both sides of the street with one ADA designated stall. The proposed sign plan recommends the installation of four (4) signs to designate eleven (11) parking stalls with 2-hour restrictions, while keeping the existing ADA stall unchanged. The proposed 2-hour parking zones will be effective only from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm of any day except Sundays and holidays (Section 20-79 of the Salinas Municipal Code). The 2- hour parking restricted spaces are for general public use and not exclusively for City Hall or other government buildings. Because parking demand is expected to shift to West Gabilan Street once the front entrance of City Hall closes, staff recommends the 2-hour parking zone designations along West Gabilan Street between Church Street and Lincoln Avenue as shown in Attachment 2.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION:

The recommendation of 2-hour parking zone designation along West Gabilan Street between Church Street and Lincoln Avenue was presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its June 8, 2023 meeting. The Commission voted (3-2) to recommend City Council approve a Resolution establishing 2-hour parking zone designation along West Gabilan Street between Church Street and Lincoln Avenue. Commissioners Cox, Davis and Howell voted in support of the recommendation and Commissioners Canseco and Quigley voted against the recommendation.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Designation of parking restrictions on City street is exempt under CEQA 15301, Class 1(c) since the actions consists of operation and minor alteration of an existing City street.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The 2-hour parking zone supports the Council goals of “Effective and Culturally Responsive Government” by making parking adjustments that supports local businesses.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:
2-hour parking zone designations are installed and maintained by Public Works staff. Parking enforcement is provided in coordination with Parking Enforcement contractor (LAZ) and the City Police Department.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is some General Fund liability. The estimated cost to install the parking signs is $2,500.

The Downtown Parking District (5446) has sufficient funding available, however any budget shortfall will need to be backed up by the General Fund and historically the district has not had sufficient revenues to cover its annual expenses.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1: Downtown Salinas On-Street Parking
Attachment 2: Sign Plan
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF 2-HOUR PARKING ZONE ALONG WEST GABILAN STREET

BETWEEN CHURCH STREET AND LINCOLN AVENUE SIGN PLAN
WHEREAS, City Hall is planned to be under construction this summer for emergency roof repair and asbestos abatement; and
WHEREAS, while City Hall is under construction, the front entrance will be closed to the public and residents will have to enter through the back entrance to do business; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends the designation of 2-hour parking zones along West Gabilan Street between Church Street and Lincoln Avenue, to prevent long term parking and to facilitate parking turnover; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2023, the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted (3-2) to recommend to City Council to approve staff’s recommendation of 2-hour parking zone designation along West Gabilan Street between Church Street and Lincoln Avenue sign plan to allow for turnaround of parking for customers to have access to City Hall.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby approves the establishment of 2-hour parking zone designations along West Gabilan Street between Church Street and Lincoln Avenue.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 8
th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
2 _________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Amtrak
Station
John
Steinbeck
Library
Monterey Salinas
Transit Station
National
Guard
Armory
National
Steinbeck
Center
U.S. Post
Office
City Hall
Monterey
County
Offices &
Courts
Salinas
Recreation
Center

BRIDGE ST

SOLEDAD ST

W GABILAN ST

E GABILAN ST

AUBURN ST

CLAY ST WINHAM ST

W SANLUIS ST

E SAN LUIS ST

HOWARD ST

HAPP PL

PALMETTO ST

STATION PL

E LAKE ST

ARCHER ST

CAPITOL ST

CAYUGA ST

SOLEDAD ST

PAJARO ST

SALINAS ST

VALE ST

STONE ST

CASSIDY ST

CAYUGA ST

MONTEREY ST

CHURCH ST

LINCOLN AVE

RIKER ST

E ROSSI ST

JOHN ST

W ALISAL ST

E ALISAL ST

E MARKET ST

W MARKET ST

MAIN ST
Downtown Salinas On-Street Parking
200 Lincoln Ave Salinas, California 93901 (831) 758-7241 M:\GIS_Projects\Public_Works\TrafficAndTransportation\ParkingEnforcement\Downtown Parking\Downtown Parking.aprx Landmarks
Parking Restrictions
Unlimited
20min
1hr
90min
2hr
4hr
EV
Handicap
Loading
Passenger Loading
Reserved

WEST GABILAN STREET

CHURCH STREET

LINCOLN AVENUE
R32(CA)(D) R32(CA)(D)
R32(CA)(L) R32(CA)(R)

SA L I NA S

C A L I F OR NI A
N PROPOSED 2-HOUR PARKING ZONE AT WEST GABILAN STREET BETWEEN CHURCH STREET AND LINCOLN AVENUE SIGN PLAN LEGEND EXISTING BLUE ZONES EXISTING RED ZONES PARKING HOUR TO PARKING HOUR TO R32(CA)(R) 12"X18" R32(CA)(L) 12"X18" EXCEPT SUNDAYS EXCEPT SUNDAYS 8AM 6 PM 2 8AM 6 PM 2AND HOLIDAYS AND HOLIDAYS PARKING HOUR TO R32(CA)(D) 12"X18" AND HOLIDAYS EXCEPT SUNDAYS 8AM 6 PM 2 0 30' 60' SCALE: 1"=30' NEW SIGN AND POST NEW SIGN ON EXISTING POLE City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-470, Version: 1
2-Hour Parking Zone Request Along Holaday Avenue at 901 East Alisal Street Approve a Resolution establishing approximately 50 feet of 2-hour parking zone designations along Holaday Avenue at 901 East Alisal Street.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/2/2023
powered by Legistar™

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ADRIANA ROBLES, CITY ENGINEER

GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: 2-HOUR PARKING ZONE REQUEST ALONG HOLADAY
AVENUE AT 901 EAST ALISAL STREET
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution establishing approximately 50 feet of 2-hour parking zone designation along Holaday Avenue at 901 East Alisal Street.

BACKGROUND:

Elvin Marroquin, owner of Trujillo Tax Services, Inc., is requesting a 2-hour parking zone along the business’ side street frontage on Holaday Street. The business address is 901 East Alisal Street and is located at the corner of East Alisal Street and Holaday Avenue (Attachment 2). According to the business owner, the lack of off-street parking and vehicles parked for extended periods along the business’ side street frontage on Holaday Avenue have an adverse effect on their business since the vehicles are not moved thus affecting turnover during business hours. Customers spend an estimated time of 1 hour per visit up to 2 hours at his business. The requestor is aware that the proposed 2-hour parking zones, if approved, are not for the exclusive use of the requestor. The 2- hour parking zone restricted spaces are for the public's use. Enforcement is generally done on a call basis.

The proposed 2-hour parking zone is effective only from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm of any day except Sundays and holidays (Municipal Code § 20-79). After 6:00 pm parking is not restricted to 2- hours and available for general public parking.

Holaday Avenue, extends from East Street to East Alisal Street, is a two-lane local street, which is generally 44 feet wide (curb face to curb face). This street is approximately 220 feet long and parking is generally permitted on both sides of the street.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION:

The recommendation of approximately 50 feet of 2-hour parking zone designation along Holaday Avenue at 901 East Alisal Street was presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its June 8, 2023 meeting. The Commission voted (4-1) to recommend City Council approve a resolution establishing approximately 50 feet of 2-hour parking zone designation along Holaday Avenue at 901 East Alisal Street. Commissioners Canseco, Cox, Gonzales Reyes and Howell voted in support of the recommendation and Commissioner Quigley voted against the recommendation.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Designation of parking restrictions on City street is exempt under CEQA 15301, Class 1(c) since the actions consists of operation and minor alteration of an existing City street.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The designation of the 2-Hour Parking Zones supports Council’s initiative of Economic Development by making parking adjustments that supports local businesses.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no impact to the General Fund. The owner of 901 East Alisal Street has submitted payment to fund the costs and the installation of the 2-hour parking zone designations.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1: Application
Attachment 2: Location Map
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET OF 2-HOUR PARKING ZONE DESIGNATIONS ALONG HOLADAY AVENUE AT 901 EAST ALISAL STREET WHEREAS, at its meeting of August 9, 2022, the Salinas City Council adopted a Resolution approving the 2022-2023 Special Curb Markings; and WHEREAS, City staff received a request from Elvin Marroquin, the owner of Trujillo Tax Services Inc. of 901 East Alisal Street, to install 2-hour parking zone designation along the business’ Holaday Avenue frontage; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2023, the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted (4-1) to recommend to City Council to approve staff’s recommendation approximatley 50 feet of 2-hour parking zone designation along Holaday Avenue and 901 East Alisal Street to allow for a quick turnaround of parking spaces for customers to have access to businesses.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby amends Resolution No. 22445 approved on August 9, 2022, by approximately 50 feet of 2-hour parking zone designations along Holaday Avenue at 901 East Alisal Street.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 8
th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

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

S A L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A

N EAST ALISAL STREET EAST STREET
HOLADAY AVENUE 1-HOUR PARKING 2-HOUR PARKING R32(CA)(R) R32(CA)(L) PROPOSED 2-HOUR PARKING ZONE ALONG HOLADAY AVENUE AT 901 EAST ALISAL STREET 0 50' 100' SCALE 1" = 50' LEGEND EXISTING PARKING TIME LIMIT EXISTING RED ZONES 901 PARKING HOUR TO PARKING HOUR TO R32(CA)(R) 12"X18" R32(CA)(L) 12"X18" EXCEPT SUNDAYS EXCEPT SUNDAYS 7AM 6 PM 2 7AM 6 PM 2AND HOLIDAYS AND HOLIDAYS City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-471, Version: 1
2023/2024 Special Curb Marking Deletions
Approve a Resolution approving the 2023/2024 special curb markings list and removal of five (5) special curb markings parking stalls at 534, 536 and 546 Abbott Street.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/2/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ADRIANA ROBLES, CITY ENGINEER

GERARDO, RODRIGUEZ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: 2023/2024 SPECIAL CURB MARKINGS DELETIONS
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution approving the 2023/2024 special curb markings list and removal of five (5) special curb marking parking stalls at 534, 536 and 546 Abbott Street.

BACKGROUND:

On May 1, 2023, annual letters to renew existing special curb markings fronting thirty-one (31) businesses were mailed to business owners requesting payment for renewals with a deadline of June 30, 2023. On May 23, 2023, staff mailed a second notice to the business owners who had not mailed a payment. On June 13, 2023, a third and final notice was delivered in person to business properties who had not paid informing them that the special curb marking fronting their business properties would be recommended for deletion at the July 2023 Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting if they did not respond by June 30, 2023. On July 10 and July 11, 2023, staff received payment from four of the businesses that were originally going to be proposed for removal to Council and staff has updated the proposed special curb markings deletions to reflect those that have not paid.

During the fiscal year 2022-2023, there were eighty-one (81) green, two (2) white, and six (6) yellow paid zones fronting businesses throughout the City. Of these eighty-one (81) markings, five (5) are being proposed for deletion (see table below). The other seventy-six (76) special curb markings have been paid by the business owners to retain their special curb markings, generating a total of $9,555.00. Payment for the special curb markings renewal is used to cover the expenses for refreshing curb markings and signs every year once renewed.

The following list of special curb markings identifies the businesses that have requested the zones be removed or have not submitted payment to retain these special curb markings. In the event City staff receives payment prior to Council’s final consideration in August, the curb marking locations will be removed from the deletions list. In accordance with Section 20-74 and 20-79 of the Salinas Municipal Code, a resolution must be passed formally making such changes. Thus, City Council is requested to formally adopt a resolution to delete the marking locations identified below:

Page | 2
SPECIAL CURB MARKINGS DELETIONS:

APPLICANT LOCATION
NO.

PARKING
STALLS
REASON
A & O S Specialty Pharmacy 534, 536, 546 Abbott St. (5) Green Requested By Applicant TOTAL: 5
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION:

The 2023/2024 special curb markings list and removal of five (5) special curb marking parking stalls at 534, 536, 546 Abbott Street was presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its July 13, 2023 meeting for review and feedback. Staff informed the commission at the meeting on July 13, 2023 that the City had received payment to the four locations that the city had not received a response after contact. Furthermore, the Commission voted (4-0) on a modification to staff's recommendation to account for the received payment to recommend City Council to approve a resolution approving the 2023/2024 special curb markings list and removal of five (5) special curb marking parking stalls at 534, 536 and 546 Abbott Street. Commissioners Canseco, Cox, Davis, and Howell voted in support of the revised recommendation. Commissioner Quigly voted to abstain.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301, Class 1). The project consists of the operation, repair, or minor alteration of public streets involving no expansion of use. There would be no significant effect on the environment.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The approval of the 2023/2024 special curb markings supports the City Council’s goal of “Economic Development”. Special curb markings create parking turnover and available parking for customers to support local businesses.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Special curb markings are maintained by Public Works staff and are enforced in coordination with Salinas Parking Enforcement staff. No additional department coordination was conducted.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are available in the current budget to remove the special markings. The renewal of the seventy-six (76) other special curb markings generated $9,555.00, which covers the cost to maintain these zones. Renewal fees are deposited into the City’s General Fund.

Page | 3
ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1: 2023-2024 Special Curb Markings Report
Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE 2023-2024 SPECIAL CURB MARKINGS LIST AND THE REMOVAL OF FIVE (5) SPECIAL CURB MARKING PARKING STALLS AT 534, 536 AND 546 ABBOTT STREET WHEREAS, the City’s Special Curb Marking Program is a resource available for businesses and property owners to establish on-street parking regulations along their property frontage; and
WHEREAS, the program is cost neutral to the City and the applicant is generally responsible for the costs of installing and maintaining their special curb markings; and WHEREAS, a representative from A & O S Specialty Pharmacy requested to opt out of the Special Curb Marking Program, and payment was received to renew and refresh all other special curb markings; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of July 13, 2023, the Salinas Traffic and Transportation Commission voted (4-0) to recommended to City Council to approve a resolution to update the status of the 2023-2024 special curb markings and delete special curb markings where businesses have requested the removal of existing special curb markings or did not submit the annual renewal fee to retain markings; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that the implementing the parking restrictions is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301, Class 1). The project consists of the operation, repair, or minor alteration of public streets involving no expansion of use. There would be no significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approve a resolution approving the 2023-2024 special curb markings list and the removal of five (5) special curb marking parking stalls at 534, 536 and 546 Abbott Street.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 8
th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

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

SPECIAL CURB MARKINGS
BLUE ZONE ~ GREEN ZONE ~ WHITE ZONE ~ YELLOW ZONE FISCAL YEAR 2023/2024 Type of Zone
180 Hair Transformatin 24 West Curtis 3 $318.50 21807
East Market #8075 - 701 E. Market St. 701 E. Market St. 2 $318.50 11140 La Mexicana Market & Deli 241 John St. 2 $318.50
El Primo Express (Attn: David Miranda) 345 Willaims Rd 2 $318.50 921 E. Alisal St. 2 $318.50 8829
Espinoza Furniture (Attn: Pablo Espinoza) #0 - 607 E. Market St.

J Russo Properties #8065 - 921 E. Alisal St.

Mike's Auto Sales 348 Abbott St.

Town 'N Country Realty/GMAC Real Estate (Attn: Dale Handley) - 35 Maple St. 35 Maple St. 2 $318.50 16646 $318.50
$318.50
$318.50
$318.50
El Rey Market (Attn: Nick Shaman) #0 - 323 Williams Rd. 323 Williams Rd. 1 $318.50 607 E. Market St. 2 $318.50
ZION Floors Inc. (Alex Negnete) #0 - 238 Abbott St.

ZION Floors Inc. (Alex Negnete) #0 - 238 Abbott St.
230 Abbott St.
238 Abbott St.
2 2
Silacci Investment Realty (Attn: Jesse Silacci) #0 - 328 Cayuga St. 3 Stop By Market #1860 - 234 Williams Rd. 234 Williams Rd. 2 15651 18482
Quantity Total Fees Resolution No.

Green Zones
Applicant (Reference) / Account No. / Address Location
East of Eden (Mike Bitar) 514 Work St. 514 Work St. 4
Caliber Collision (Attn. Penny Barnes) 131 Abbott St. 2 $318.50 $318.50 21535
Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream, Kim (Owner) #8067 - 1100 S. Main St.

American Supply Co. #8061 - 130 W. Market St.
1100 S. Main St. 1
$318.50
$318.50
130 W. Market St. 3
516 E. Alisal St. 3
1222 Del Monte Ave.

Las Palmas Properties (C/O: Bay Property Management) 1033 E. Market St. 3 $318.50
5 8 $318.50
7 $318.50
Allen, Jill (Soledad St. Marketplace) 19 Soledad St 2 $0.00 $318.50 21682
Agave Auto Sales Inc. - 714 E. Matket St. 714 E. Market St. 3 $318.50 22211 Cals Center Liquor (Attn: Paul Lee) #3782 - 118 Central Ave. 118 Central Ave. 2 $318.50 12672 9771
6993
21534
$318.50 21970
Panaderia Azteca 349 Williams Rd.
$318.50
La Michocana Bakery (Attn: Victor Martinez) #0 - 1222 Del Monte Ave. 7 & 9 Winham St.

La Princessa (Fadhl Shaman) 516 E. Alisal St
22355
8 $318.50 22157
Salinas Fresh Produce East Alisal St. Frontage & 22169 & 22240 Tony's Market 2034 N. Main St. 2
White
Yellow
GRAND TOTAL:

Salinas Valley Post Acute 637 E. Romie Ln. 1 $318.50
Along San Luis St. 2
Summary of Type = Yellow (3 detail records) 6 $955.50
81 $9,555.00
17128
Windsor The Ridge Rehabilitation 350 Iris Dr. 3 $318.50 16004 Marvel Cleaners #1526 - 434 Salinas St. 434 Salinas St. 1 $318.50 16004 Summary of Type = White (2 detail records) 2 $637.00
Las Palmas Plaza (1019 E. Alisal St.) P.O. Box BB 1019 E. Alisal St. 2 $0.00
$318.50
Summary of Type = Green (21 locations) 73 $7,962.50
Gateway Senior Apartments (Attn: Kiyabu, Kathleen) #0 - 25 Lincoln Ave. 25 Lincoln Ave. 1 $318.50 120 Capitol St. 2 $0.00
Salinas Adult School
SUHS District Admin. Office 431 W. Alisal St. 2 $0.00
$0.00 18458
City of Salinas, Municipal Airport
Alisal Community School 1437 Del Monte Ave. 6 $0.00
Cesar Chavez Elementary School 1225 Towt St. 3
15848
17098
10 Mortensen Ave. 4 $0.00
Cohetti, Gene - 347 Front Street
1155 E. Alisal St. 4 $0.00
$0.00
2 $0.00
120 Capitol St. 10 $0.00
356 E Alisal St. 4 $0.00
431 West Alisal St. 2
8199
Roosevelt Elementary School 17126
9831
9877
18483
9831
Sun Street Center 8 Sun St. 2 $0.00
U.S. Post Office, Steinbeck Station 100 W. Alisal St. 12 $0.00 Pacific Gas & Electric #1309
Roosevelt Elementary School
Salinas Child Care Center, Jan Phillips-Paulsen 342 Front St. 5 $0.00 Salinas Chambers of Commerce - 119 E Alisal Street At Salinas St.

Japanese Cemetery 1131 Abbott St 2 $0.00 15279
Natividad Elementary School 1465 Modoc Ave. 2 $0.00
El Saulsal Middle School
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-472, Version: 1
“No Parking” Red Zones at Various Locations
Approve Resolution(s) establishing 45 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Humboldt Drive and Donner Way, 65 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of North Madeira Avenue and Roosevelt Street, 85 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Riker Street and Lang Street and 90 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Rochex Avenue and North 3rd Street.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/2/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ADRIANA ROBLES, CITY ENGINEER

GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: “NO PARKING” RED ZONES AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve Resolutions establishing:
i. 45 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Humboldt Drive and Donner Way; ii. 65 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of North Madeira Avenue and Roosevelt Street;
iii. 85 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Riker Street and Lang Street; and iv. 90 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Rochex Avenue and North 3rd Street.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Staff received a request to evaluate sight lines at the intersections of Humboldt Drive and Donner Way. Staff conducted a traffic study and determined that parked vehicles obstructed sightlines necessary to provide the minimum stopping sight distance. Staff is recommending the designation of approximately a total of 45 feet of “No Parking” red zones at the intersections of Humboldt Drive to provide sufficient sight lines.

Staff received a request to evaluate the potential of establishing stop signs at the intersections of North Maderia Avenue and N 3rd Avenue, Riker Street and Lang Street, and Rochex Avenue and North 3rd Street. Staff performed a traffic analysis and determined the intersections do not warrant stop signs. Furthermore, staff conducted a traffic study and determined that parked vehicles obstructed sightlines necessary to provide the minimum stopping sight distance. Staff is recommending the designation of approximately 65 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of North Madeira Avenue and Roosevelt Street, 85 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Riker Street and Lang Street and 90 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Rochex Avenue and North 3rd Street.

BACKGROUND:

Page | 2
Humboldt Drive and Donner Way
Public Works staff received a request (Service Request No. 97750) to evaluate sight lines at the intersection of Humboldt Drive and Donner Way. Staff conducted an analysis and determined sight lines necessary to make a safe turning movement based on gap acceptance decision for turning movements for the minor roadway (Donner Way) while providing necessary stopping sight distance for vehicles on the major roadway (Humboldt Drive). Humboldt Drive is a residential street with a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The minimum stopping sight distance per state and federal design standards is 155 feet. Based on the traffic analysis and applicable design standards, staff is recommending the restriction of approximately 45 feet of parking along Humboldt Drive (see Attachment 2). It should be noted that the intersection sight triangles require that 10 feet of curb parking remain clear on the north-east corner of the intersection. However, this corner has a fire hydrant and parking within 15 feet of the fire hydrant is prohibited by California Vehicle Code Section 22514 without necessitating red curb markings.

North Madeira Avenue and Roosevelt Street
Public Works staff received a request from a resident to evaluate the potential of establishing stop signs at the intersection of North Madeira and Roosevelt Street. According to the requestor, cars parked along the intersection of North Madeira Avenue and Roosevelt Street make it difficult to see oncoming vehicles. Staff performed a traffic analysis and determined the intersection does not warrant stop signs, see Attachment 4. Stop signs are only warranted under specific roadway volumes or collision history. Installing a stop sign where it is not warranted can do more harm than good, and often increases the potential for collisions. It is therefore critical the City take careful consideration when evaluating a stop sign and comply with state and federal guidelines and the City’s traffic control device policy outlined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Resolution No. 18725).

Although a stop sign is not warranted at this location, staff looked for additional issues that may be the root cause of the problem. Staff conducted an analysis and determined sight lines necessary to make a safe turning movement based on gap acceptance decision for turning movements for the minor roadway (Roosevelt Street) while providing necessary stopping sight distance for vehicles on the major roadway (North Madeira Avenue). North Madeira Avenue is a residential street with a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The minimum stopping sight distance per state and federal design standards is 155 feet. Based on the traffic analysis and applicable design standards, staff is recommending the restriction of approximately 65 feet of parking along North Madeira Avenue (see Attachment 5).

Riker Street and Lang Street
Public Works staff received a request from a resident to evaluate the potential of establishing stop signs at the intersection of Riker Street and Lang Street. According to the requestor, cars parked along the intersection of Riker Street and Lang Street make it difficult to see oncoming vehicles.

Staff performed a traffic analysis and determined the intersection does not warrant stop signs, see Attachment 6. Stop signs are only warranted under specific roadway volumes or collision history.

Installing a stop sign where it is not warranted can do more harm than good, and often increases the potential for collisions. It is therefore critical the City take careful consideration when evaluating a stop sign and comply with state and federal guidelines and the City’s traffic control Page | 3
device policy outlined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control, Resolution No. 18725.

Although a stop sign is not warranted at this location, staff looked for additional issues that may be the root cause of the problem. Staff conducted an analysis and determined sight lines necessary to make a safe turning movement based on gap acceptance decision for turning movements for the minor roadway (Lang Street) while providing necessary stopping sight distance for vehicles on the major roadway (Riker Street). Riker Street is a collector street with a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The minimum stopping sight distance per state and federal design standards is 155 feet. Based on the traffic analysis and applicable design standards, staff is recommending the restriction of approximately 85 feet of parking along Riker Street (see Attachment 7).

Rochex Avenue and North 3rd Street
Public Works staff received a request from a resident to evaluate the potential of establishing stop signs at the intersection of Rochex Avenue and North 3rd Street. According to the requestor, cars parked along the intersection of Rochex Avenue and North 3rd Street make it difficult to see oncoming vehicles. Staff performed a traffic analysis and determined the intersection does not warrant stop signs, see Attachment 8. Stop signs are only warranted under specific roadway volumes or collision history. Installing a stop sign where it is not warranted can do more harm than good, and often increases the potential for collisions. It is therefore critical the City take careful consideration when evaluating a stop sign and comply with state and federal guidelines and the City’s traffic control device policy outlined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Resolution No. 18725).

Although a stop sign is not warranted at this location, staff looked for additional issues that may be the root cause of the problem. Staff conducted an analysis and determined sight lines necessary to make a safe turning movement based on gap acceptance decision for turning movements for the minor roadway (North 3rd Street) while providing necessary stopping sight distance for vehicles on the major roadway (Rochex Avenue). Rochex Avenue is a residential street with a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The minimum stopping sight distance per state and federal design standard is 155 feet. Based on the traffic analysis and applicable design standards, staff is recommending the restriction of approximately 90 feet of parking along Rochex Avenue (see Attachment 9).

Intersection sight distance criteria for stop-controlled intersections is typically longer than stopping sight distance to allow the intersection to operate smoothly. Minor-road vehicle operators can wait at the approach until they can adequately evaluate sufficient gaps in traffic so that they can proceed safely without forcing a major-road vehicle to stop or unduly interfering with major-road traffic operations. For this application staff is recommending stopping sight distance as the minimum standard to apply to provide adequate sight lines and minimize the impacts to on-street parking capacity.

Traffic and Transportation Commission:

At its July 13, 2023 meeting, the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted as follows:

Page | 4
 (4-1) to recommend to the City Council the approval of a Resolution establishing a total of 45 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Humboldt Drive and Donner Way.

Commissioners Davis, Cox, Howell and Canseco voted in support of the recommendation.

Commission Quigley voted against supporting the proposed recommendation.;  (4-1) to recommend to the City Council the approval of a Resolution establishing a total of 65 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of North Madeira Avenue and Roosevelt Street. The Commission received comments from residents in support of the recommendation. Commissioners Davis, Cox, Howell and Canseco voted in support of the recommendation. Commissioner Quigley voted against supporting the proposed recommendation.;
 (4-1) to recommend to the City Council the approval of a Resolution establishing a total of 85 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Riker Street and Lang Street.

Commissioners Davis, Cox, Howell and Canseco voted in support of the recommendation.

Commissioner Quigley voted against supporting the proposed recommendation.;  (3-2) to recommend to the City Council the approval of a Resolution establishing a total of 90 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Rochex Avenue and North 3rd Street. Commissioners Davis, Cox and Canseco voted in support of the recommendation.

Commissioners Howell and Quigley voted against supporting the proposed recommendation.

Staff is recommending that City Council consider each request separately based on the responses received from the residents and the Commission.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
“No Stopping” red zones at intersections to provide minimum stopping sight distance supports Council’s goal of Public Safety.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Red zones are installed and maintained by Public Works staff. Parking enforcement is provided in coordination with Parking Enforcement contractor (LAZ) and the Police Department.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The estimated labor and material cost to install “No Stopping” red zones along Humboldt Drive, North Madeira, Riker Street and Rochex Avenue is estimated to be $1,100. Sufficient funding is available in the current streets budget to fund the installations.

Page | 5
ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution – Humbolt Dr and Donner Way
Resolution – N Madeira Ave and Roosevelt St
Resolution – Riker St and Lang St
Resolution – Rochex Ave and N 3rd St
Attachment 1: Humboldt Dr and Donner Way Service Request 97750 Attachment 2: Humboldt Dr and Donner Way Sight Visibility Analysis Attachment 4: N Madeira Ave and Roosevelt St Stop Warrants Worksheet Analysis Attachment 5: N Madeira Ave and Roosevelt St Sight Visibility Analysis Attachment 6: Riker St and Lang St Stop Warrant Analysis Attachment 7: Riker St and Lang St Sight Visibility Analysis Attachment 8: Rochex Ave and N 3rd St Stop Warrant Analysis Attachment 9: Rochex Ave and N 3rd St Sight Visibility Analysis 1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING 45 FEET OF “NO STOPPING” RED ZONES AT THE INTERSECTION OF

HUMBOLDT DRIVE AND DONNER WAY
WHEREAS, the City received a request to evaluate corner sight distance at the intersections of Humboldt Drive and Donner Way and along Pescadero Drive to determine proper sightlines necessary to provide stopping sight distance; and WHEREAS, staff conducted an intersection sight distance analysis and is recommending the establishment of 45 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Humboldt Drive and Donner Way; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2023, the Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting, the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted (4-1) to recommend to the City Council the approval of a Resolution establishing a total of 45 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Humboldt Drive and Donner Way; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that the implementing the parking restrictions is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301, Class 1). The project consists of the operation, repair, or minor alteration of public streets involving no expansion of use. There would be no significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby approved the establishment of 45 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Humboldt Drive and Donner Way.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 8
th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
2 ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING 85 FEET OF “NO STOPPING” RED ZONES AT THE INTERSECTION OF

RIKER STREET AND LANG STREET
WHEREAS, the City received a request to evaluate the potential of establishing stop signs at the intersection of Riker Street and Lang Street for all-way stop and sight lines; and WHEREAS, stop signs are only warranted under specific roadway volumes or collision history. Staff found that stop sign warrants were not met at this location; and WHEREAS, staff conducted an intersection sight distance analysis and is recommending the establishment of 85 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Riker Street and Lang Street to provide sufficient intersection sight triangles; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2023, the Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting, the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted (4-1) to recommend to the City Council the approval of a Resolution establishing a total of 85 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Riker Street and Lang Street; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that the implementing the parking restrictions is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301, Class 1). The project consists of the operation, repair, or minor alteration of public streets involving no expansion of use. There would be no significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby approved the establishment of 85 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Riker Street and Lang Street.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 8
th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

NORTH MADEIRA AVENUE AND ROOSEVELT STREET
WHEREAS, the City received a request to evaluate the potential of establishing stop signs at the intersection of North Maderia and Roosevelt Street for all-way stop and sight lines; and WHEREAS, stop signs are only warranted under specific roadway volumes or collision history. Staff found that stop sign warrants were not met at this location; and WHEREAS, staff conducted an intersection sight distance analysis and is recommending the establishment of 65 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of North Madeira Avenue and Roosevelt Street to provide sufficient intersection sight triangles; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2023, the Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting, the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted (4-1) to recommend to the City Council the approval of a Resolution establishing a total of 65 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of North Madeira Avenue and Roosevelt Street; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that the implementing the parking restrictions is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301, Class 1). The project consists of the operation, repair, or minor alteration of public streets involving no expansion of use. There would be no significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby approved the establishment of 65 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of North Madeira Avenue and Roosevelt Street.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 8
th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
2 ________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING 90 FEET OF “NO STOPPING” RED ZONES AT THE INTERSECTION OF
ROCHEX AVENUE AND NORTH 3RD STREET
WHEREAS, the City received a request to evaluate the potential of establishing stop signs at the intersection of North Maderia and Roosevelt Street, Riker Street and Lang Street, and Rochex Avenue and North 3rd Street for all-way stop and sight lines; and WHEREAS, stop signs are only warranted under specific roadway volumes or collision history. Staff found that stop sign warrants were not met at this location; and WHEREAS, staff conducted an intersection sight distance analysis and is recommending the establishment of 90 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Rochex Avenue and North 3rd Street to provide sufficient intersection sight triangles; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2023, the Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting, the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted (3-2) to recommend to the City Council the approval of a Resolution establishing a total of 90 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Rochex Avenue and North 3rd Street; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that the implementing the parking restrictions is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301, Class 1). The project consists of the operation, repair, or minor alteration of public streets involving no expansion of use. There would be no significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby approved the establishment of 90 feet of “No Stopping” red zones at the intersection of Rochex Avenue and North 3rd Street.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 8
th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

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

!
"!#$%&& ' ((
)*+,*-./01 23345 )*+,*-.678*1 9:;<=>?@ABC
DEFGEF.71 H IJ.*E*KL71 MN@NOP@:C
0Q.*R,STF..*K1 UVHWVH5HXYZ43Z55[\ ]EG--R.E**.1
^KKE*--1 U5W_`aabc?[d
eM<=NMC

0F-.EFf.1 X
]GTT*J.-1 \Og@APhA>@Pi<M=Nj=Ck:hjlMjmhMCAhC=khNjC=ClMAkMNk:NCMghj:AN=Nn<hgj@AA=nlj@N _@NNhAmMOj@o:P;@<kjejAhhjk:hj@<MAnhjA:>BCiMABhklhAhpo@m>MNmhnhjAhkq@NhC @NhM>lC=khC@mh>MNk@CMghj:ANC@Nj@CjAhhjMNkjl=Cm=<<Mr@=kjlhrhl=><hj@iMABj@ ><@Chj@>@ANhAp
DEFsQ.*tG.*-1
tQT*1 u=PhNhqvc=>MAk@9 ITQFw1 A=>u=PhNhqH5xXynPM=<p>@P ^KKE*--1 x33W_`aabcz{c
e[|{a[evz[2X25U
D}GJ*~1 YXx4Y4UWxW I.*J-FGJ1
^w.D}GJ*~1I.*J-FGJ1
tG.F71
DE**EE*KQJ,Q*/

.}*E6}QJIJwF-}1
0Q.*1 UVHWVH5HXYZ43Z55[\
-*E1 MN@NOP@:C
]GTT*J.-1 ehAr=>hch:hCj`ihN{_23345
c@:jhk@Z>A=CCOvkMr=kuvl=<kMn
z@PPhNjCZ\Og@APhA>@Pi<M=Nj=Ck:hjlMjmhMCAhC=khNjC=ClMAkMNk:NCMghj:AN=Nn<hgj @AA=nlj@N_@NNhAmMOj@o:P;@<kjejAhhjk:hj@<MAnhjA:>BCiMABhklhAhpo@m>MNmhnhj Ahkq@NhC@hM>lC=khC@mh>MNk@CMghj:ANC@Nj@CjAhhjMNkjl=Cm=<<Mr@=kjlhrhl=><hj@ iMABj@><@Chj@>@ANhAp
[kk=j=@NM<{Ng@Zl=CAh:hCjmMC>AhMjhk:C=NnMP@;=<hkhr=>hplh<@>Mj=@NMChNjhAhk;O jlhC:;P=jjhAmMCZU5W_@NNhA?MOeM<=NMCz[2X25UN=jhkejMjhC 0Q.*1 UVHWVH5HXYZ43Z55[\
-*E1 MN@NOP@:C
]GTT*J.-1 [NM:j@PMjhkhPM=<lMC;hhNChNjj@jlhC:;P=jjhACZA=>u=PhNhqH5xXynPM=<p>@P 0Q.*1 UVHWVH5HXYZ43Z55[\
-*E1 MN@NOP@:C
]GTT*J.-1 [NM:j@PMjhkjhjPhCCMnhm=<<;hChNj<MjhAk:A=Nn;:C=NhCCl@:ACj@YXx4Y4UWxW 0Q.*1 UVHUVH5HXxxZH3Z55[\
-*E1 zA=CCO
]GTT*J.-1 ehAr=>hch:hCjAhA@:jhkj@u@ChCM:vnhAMAk@A chC=khNj=CAh:hCj=Nnchk@NhCp
0Q.*1 UVHUVH5HXXZ55Z559\
-*E1 nhAMAk@A
]GTT*J.-1 lMNBO@:g@A>@NjM>j=Nnjlhz=jO@geM<=NMC9:;<=>?@ABC_hiMAjPhNjp lhz=jOlMCAh>h=rhkO@:AChAr=>hAh:hCjpchkq@NhCMAhMiiA@rhk;Oz=jOz@:N>=<pz=jOCjM m=<<ihAg@APMC=nljr=C=;=<=jOMNM<OC=CMNkiAhChNj=jj@jlhAM>MNkAMNCi@AjMj=@N z@PP=CC=@Ng@Ajlh=AAh>@PPhNkMj=@Nj@z=jOz@:N>=<g@Ajlh=AMiiA@rM<ihAchC@<:j=@Np e=nljr=C=;=<=jOMNM<OC=CMAhihAg@APhkihACjMjhMNkghkhAM<n:=kh<=NhCp 0Q.*1 UVHUVH5HXXZ55Z559\
-*E1 nhAMAk@A
]GTT*J.-1 [NM:j@PMjhkhPM=<lMC;hhNChNjj@jlhC:;P=jjhACZA=>u=PhNhqH5xXynPM=<p>@P 0Q.*1 UVHUVH5HXXZ55Z559\
-*E1 nhAMAk@A
]GTT*J.-1 [NM:j@PMjhkjhjPhCCMnhmMCChNjj@YXx4Y4UWxW R*EsFf*)*+,*-.
ch>@Ak{Ng@
e:;P=jjhA{Ng@
[>j=r=jO|=Cj
¡¢¡£¤¡£££
¥
155' 45' PROPOSED "NO STOPPING" RED ZONES DONNER WAY AT HUMBOLDT DRIVE 0 50' 100' SCALE: 1"=50' HUMBOLDT DR DONNER WAY LEGEND PROPOSED "NO STOPPING" RED ZONES 30' CLEAR ZONE DUE TO FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT S A L I NA SC A L I F ORNI A N Stop Warrant Analysis: N Madeira Ave and Roosevelt St
Date: 06/12/2023Performed by: Chris BanuelosAWSC²
Major
Approach 8‐
hour
average
Major
Approach
(<40 mph)
8‐hour
average
AWSC
Warrant
Minor
Approach 8‐
hour
average
Minor
Approach
(<40 mph)
8‐hour
average
AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
12‐month
period
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
12‐month
period
AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
80%
Condition
Met?
N Madeira Ave and Roosevelt St 299 300 167 200 No 25 No NoTWSC³ Major
Approach
ADT
Major
Approach
ADT AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
12‐month
period
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
12‐month
period
AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
24‐month
period
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
24‐month
period
AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
Section
2B.06 02B:

A restricted
view
Section
2B.06 02B:

A restricted
view
Condition
Met?
N Madeira Ave and Roosevelt St 5005 6000 No
23 No
05 No
Footnote1. Warrants Analysis from Section 2B.06 02A, Section 2B.06 02C, Section 2B.07 04A‐D of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)2. AWSC: All‐Way Stop Control3. TWSC: Two Way Stop Control Issue will be resolved with red curb
zone
Stop Sign Warrants Analysis¹
155' S A L I NA SC A L I F ORN AI N 35' 20' 10'155' LEGEND PROPOSED "NO STOPPING" RED ZONES N MADEIRA AVE AT ROOSEVELT ST N MADEIRA AVE ROOSEVELT ST 0 50' 100' SCALE: 1"=50' PROPOSED "NO STOPPING" RED ZONES EXISTING "NO STOPPING" RED ZONES Stop Warrant Analysis: Riker St and Lang St
Date: 06/06/2023
Performed by: Chris Banuelos
AWSC²
Major
Approach 8-
hour
average
Major
Approach
(<40 mph) 8-
hour
average
AWSC
Warrant
Minor
Approach 8-
hour
average
Minor
Approach
(<40 mph) 8-
hour
average
AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
12-month
period
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
12-month
period
AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
80%
Condition
Met?
Riker St and Lang St 266 300 51 200 No 1 5 No No
TWSC³
Major
Approach
ADT
Major
Approach

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

A restricted
view
Section
2B.06 02B:

A restricted
view
Condition
Met?
Riker St and Lang St 3473 6000 No 1 3 No 2 5 No
Footnote

1. Warrants Analysis from Section 2B.06 02A, Section 2B.06 02C, Section 2B.07 04A-D of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)

2. AWSC: All-Way Stop Control

3. TWSC: Two Way Stop Control
Yes, TWSC exists.

Stop Sign Warrants Analysis¹
155' 155' 35' 5' 10' 35' LEGEND PROPOSED "NO STOPPING" RED ZONES RIKER ST LANG ST EXISTING "NO STOPPING" RED ZONES PROPOSED "NO STOPPING" RED ZONES RIKER ST AT LANG ST 0 50' 100' SCALE: 1"=50'S A L I NA SC A L I F OR NI A N Stop Warrant Analysis: Rochex Ave and N 3rd St
Date: 06/06/2023
Performed by: Chris Banuelos
AWSC²
Major
Approach 8-
hour
average
Major
Approach
(<40 mph) 8-
hour
average
AWSC
Warrant
Minor
Approach 8-
hour
average
Minor
Approach
(<40 mph) 8-
hour
average
AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
12-month
period
Reported
correctable
crashes in a
12-month
period
AWSC
Warrant
Condition
Met?
80%
Condition
Met?
Rochex Ave and N 3rd St 25 300 68 200 No 0 5 No No
TWSC³
Major
Approach
ADT
Major
Approach

A restricted
view
Section
2B.06 02B:

A restricted
view
Condition
Met?
Rochex Ave and N 3rd St 933 6000 No
0 3
No
0 5
No
Footnote

1. Warrants Analysis from Section 2B.06 02A, Section 2B.06 02C, Section 2B.07 04A-D of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)

2. AWSC: All-Way Stop Control

3. TWSC: Two Way Stop Control
Issue will be resolved with red curb
zone
Stop Sign Warrants Analysis¹
60' S A L I NA SC A L I F OR NI A N 30' 155' 155' ROCHEX AVE N 3RD ST LEGEND PROPOSED "NO STOPPING" RED ZONES PROPOSED "NO STOPPING" RED ZONES ROCHEX AVENUE AT N 3RD STREET

PARKSIDE ST
N 4TH ST SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40' 80'
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-476, Version: 1
Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System Project, CIP 9431 Final Acceptance Approve a Resolution accepting the Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System Project CIP 9431 for maintenance and responsibility.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/2/2023
powered by Legistar™

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ADRIANA ROBLES, CITY ENGINEER

GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: FRONT STREET/SHERWOOD DRIVE ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC
CONTROL SYSTEM PROJECT, CIP 9431 FINAL ACCEPTANCE
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution accepting the Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System Project CIP 9431 for maintenance and responsibility.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On September 6, 2022, the City awarded a construction contract to Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. for the Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System Project in the amount of $585,870.00. Construction began on March 6, 2023, and the contractor had 70 working days to complete the project. The project was substantially complete on May 12, 2023, within contract time. Final punch list work was completed on May 19, 2023. Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Resolution accepting the Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System Project CIP 9431 for maintenance and responsibility.

BACKGROUND:

On February 2, 2021, City Council accepted $400,000 in grant funds from the Monterey Bay Air Resources District to reduce delay and traffic queues at the five traffic signals on the roadway segment of Front Street and Sherwood Drive, through Resolution No. 22041. The City’s local match contribution was $100,000 in Measure X revenue funds. On September 6, 2022, the City Council authorized an increase of $210,000 to CIP 9431 appropriation to purchase traffic signal equipment (Resolution No. 22469).

The project was advertised on June 20, 2022 and the City opened bids on July 26, 2022. Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc was the apparent low bidder. On September 6, 2022, the construction contract was awarded to Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. for the Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System Project; CIP 9431 in the amount of $585,870.00 (Resolution No. 22469).

The contract established that the contractor must complete the work within 70 working days.

Construction began on March 6, 2023. During construction, eight (8) days were considered nonworking days due to adverse weather. As part of one of the contract change orders, an additional working day was granted extending the contract working days to 71. The project was deemed substantially complete on May 12, 2023, within contract time. Final punch list work was completed on May 19, 2023.

During construction several unforeseen conditions and unanticipated events occurred which changed the scope of work. A total of four contract change orders were approved for this project which totaled $3,993.00. The contract change orders increased the project cost to a total of $589,863.00. A summary of the change orders is listed below:

CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY

FRONT STREET/SHERWOOD DRIVE

ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM PROJECT
CIP 9431
No. Description Amount
1 Replacing existing N30 pull box to a N36 Christy pull box $1,168.00 2 Replacing existing N30 pull box to a N36 Christy pull box $1,168.00 3 Replacing existing N30 pull box to a N36 Christy pull box $1,168.00 4 T&M Fiber Work $489.00
Change Order Sub-Total $3,993.00
Original Contract Amount $585,870.00
Final Contract Amount $589,863.00
CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This action supports the City Council goal of “Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability” FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Acceptance of the signal improvements for maintenance and responsibility has a cost to the City of ongoing maintenance similar to that of the existing traffic signals. Maintenance cost is estimated at $5500 per year for each traffic signal. Maintenance of the city’s traffic signals and infrastructure is funded by fuel tax and SB1 road maintenance funds.

There was no impact to the General Fund with this project. The project was completed within its CIP budget outlined below.

PROJECT BUDGET

FRONT STREET/SHERWOOD DRIVE

ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM PROJECT
CIP 9431
Funding Source Appropriations
MBARD Grant $400,000.00
Measure X $306,000.00
Gas Tax $254,000.00
Total $960,000.00

PROJECT COSTS

FRONT STREET/SHERWOOD DRIVE

ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM PROJECT
CIP 9431
Description Amount
Original Contract $585,870.00
Change Orders $3,993.00
City Furnished Equipment $219,572.22
Engineering $86,943.10
Total $896,378.32
ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1: Resolution Number 22041
Attachment 2: Resolution Number 22469
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE FRONT STREET/SHERWOOD DRIVE ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM CIP 9431,

FOR MAINTENANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2022, the City awarded a construction contract to Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. for the Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System Project in the amount of $585,870.00; and
WHEREAS, construction began on March 6, 2023, and the contractor had 70 workings days to complete the project; and
WHEREAS, the project was substantially complete on May 12, 2023, within contract time; and
WHEREAS, final punch list work was completed on May 19, 2023; and WHEREAS, four change orders were processed during construction, totaling $3,993.00; and
WHEREAS, the project was completed within the allocated CIP budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby accepts the Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System Project CIP 9431, for maintenance and responsibility.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 8
th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
2 ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. 22041 (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GRANT FUNDS FROM THE MONTEREY BAY AIR

RESOURCES DISTRICT RECEIVED FOR THE FRONT STREET/SHERWOOD DRIVE ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM; AND AUTHORIZING THE

PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE GRANT AGREEMENTS AND GRANT DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE MONTEREY BAY AIR RESOURCES DISTRICT.

WHEREAS, The Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System project benefits city travelers by reducing delay and traffic queues at each of the five traffic signals on this roadway segment of Front Street and Sherwood Drive; and WHEREAS, adaptive traffic control systems have been proven to reduce delay at traffic signals and improve traffic safety by reducing rear end collisions, and WHEREAS, the project is expected to reduce congestion, and significantly reduce vehicle emissions from idling vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the City was awarded a grant by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District in the amount of $400,000 for the Adaptive Traffic Control System project; and WHEREAS the City’s contribution is $100,000 in Measure X revenue funds to fully fund the project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve a Resolution accepting grant funds from the Monterey Bay Air Resources District received for the Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System; and authorizing the Public Works Director to execute grant agreements and grant documents related to the Monterey Bay Air Resources District.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 2nd day of February 2021, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: Barrera, Cromeenes, González, McShane, Osornio, Rocha and Mayor Craig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1BAFDF05-AD9B-4139-BC3D-99F59BF8AAB0 Page | 2
APPROVED:
____________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1BAFDF05-AD9B-4139-BC3D-99F59BF8AAB0 RESOLUTION NO. 22469 (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE

FRONT STREET/SHERWOOD DRIVE ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM PROJECT; AWARDING A CONTRACT TO BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

FOR THE FRONT STREET/SHERWOOD DRIVE ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM PROJECT, CIP 9431, IN THE AMOUNT OF $585,870.00; AUTHORIZING A BUDGET TRANSFER OF $80,000.00 FUNDS FROM CIP 9253 AND $130,000.00 FUNDS FROM CIP 9654, FOR A TOTAL INCREASE OF $210,000.00 TO CIP 9431; AND

AUTHORIZING THE DIRECT PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $219,572.22 FOR THE FRONT STREET/SHERWOOD DRIVE ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM PROJECT, CIP 9431
WHEREAS, On February 2, 2021, City Council approved Resolution No. 22041 accepting grant funds from Monterey Bay Air Resources District for Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System and authorizing the Public Works Director to execute agreements related to the grant; and
WHEREAS, the project will improve Front Street/Sherwood Drive corridor by improving travel times, reducing delays, reducing emissions, improving air quality, and reducing rear-end collisions; and
WHEREAS, Project plans and specifications are complete, and the project was advertised on June 20, 2022; and
WHEREAS, The City opened bids on July 26, 2022, and the low bidder was Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. for the amount of $585,870.00; and WHEREAS, the City received quotesfor traffic signal equipment totaling $219,572.22 for the Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System Project, CIP 9431; and WHEREAS, City staff is recommending a budget transfer of $210,000.00 to fully fund the estimated project costs; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301, Class 1(c)) because the actions consists of operation and minor alteration of an existing City street.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approve the plans and specifications for the Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System Project, CIP 9431;
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC40057E-DDBB-4CB7-BEE5-7DD4828213AB BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council awards a contract to Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. for the Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System Project; CIP 9431, in the amount of $585,870.00; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council authorizes a budget transfer of $80,000.00 funds from CIP 9253 – ADA Traffic Signal Upgrades and $130,000.00 funds from CIP 9654 – Traffic Sign Installations, for a total increase of $210,000.00 to CIP 9431 – Traffic Signal Coordination; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas authorizes the direct purchase of traffic signal equipment in the amount of $219,572.22 for the Front Street/Sherwood Drive Adaptive Traffic Control System Project, CIP 9431.

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

AYES: Councilmembers: Barrera, Cromeenes, Gonzalez, McShane, Osornio, Rocha and Mayor Craig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
APPROVED:
_________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC40057E-DDBB-4CB7-BEE5-7DD4828213AB City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-478, Version: 1
Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Harris and Associates for the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements
Approve a Resolution approving an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $102,082, for a total compensation under the agreement not to exceed $363,818 with Harris and Associates for the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements project.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/2/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, DIRECTOR
BY: BRIAN FRUS, SENIOR ENGINEER
TITLE: AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALINAS AND HARRIS

AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER

PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution approving an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $102,082, for a total compensation under the agreement not to exceed $363,818 between the City of Salinas and Harris and Associates for the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements project.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Salinas owns and operates an Industrial Wastewater Collection and Conveyance System (IWCCS) which takes agricultural process water from 26 industries. The system is comprised of a network of piping, an Industrial Wastewater Pump Station (IWWPS), and the Industrial Waste Treatment Facility (IWTF). The IWWPS is located on Airport Boulevard in southeast Salinas and consists of a wet well and three underground pumps which convey industrial wastewater to the IWTF for further processing. The City is conducting structural evaluation and will perform upgrades that will ensure not only structural longevity of the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station but also allow for increased flow capacity and redundancy.

On January 18, 2022, the City authorized an agreement for $261,736 with Harris and Associates to perform the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements (Resolution No. 22290).

Over the course of conducting the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements, staff was made aware of certain tasks that are required that were not in the original scope of work. These include: additional design of a proposed permanent standby generator, generator pad and vault structure; additional flow monitoring; additional hydraulic analysis; site surveying identifying existing easements; corrosion protection assessment; and schedule-extension-associated costs. The additional scope represents a net increase of $102,082 to the original agreement.

Page | 2
In addition, the original agreement approved by Council is set to expire December 31, 2023 and requires revision to the terms to extend the completion date by an additional year.

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 project and agreement meet the City Council’s goal of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability (City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025) by improving City facilities.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This project has relied on coordination between the Wastewater and Water, Waste and Energy (WWE) divisions in Public Works. WWE has coordinated the overall execution of the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements with input and field support from Wastewater Division staff.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The total increased cost for the additional scope of work in the corresponding Amended and Restated Professional Services Agreement is $102,082.

A total of $1,389,220 have been appropriated to Outside Services, Other Professional Services, CIP 9009, Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements therefore sufficient funds are available for this amendment. CIP 9009 is funded by the Industrial Wastewater Enterprise Fund and thus no general funds will be expended.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for Professional Services for Environmental Consultants/Contractors, City of Salinas and Harris and Associates for the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements
Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALINAS AND HARRIS AND

ASSOCIATES FOR THE INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PUMP STATION

IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas owns and operates an Industrial Wastewater Collection and Conveyance System which includes the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, the city authorized an agreement with Harris and Associates to perform the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements (Resolution No. 22290); and
WHEREAS, over the course of conducting the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements, additional services have been required that were not in the original scope of work; and
WHEREAS, the original agreement approved by Council is set to expire at the end of the year and requires revisions to the terms to extend the completion date; and WHEREAS, an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement was drafted to reflect these changes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALINAS, that Amendment No 1 to the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Salinas and Harris and Associates to provide professional services related to the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements (CIP 9009) in the amount of $102,082, for a total compensation under the agreement not to exceed $363,818 is hereby approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of Salinas is hereby authorized and directed, for and on behalf of the City of Salinas, and as its act and deed, to execute the attached Amendment No 1 to the Professional Services Agreement. between the City of Salinas, a Charter City, and Harris and Associates, a California Corporation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute extensions and/or non-substantial modifications to the Agreement, as necessary.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 8
th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Page | 2
ABSTAIN:

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

Page 1 of 2 ends

Salinas City CouncilAugust 8, 2023

Salinas City Council
August 8, 2023