Cities Index.
Agenda Packet

Salinas City Council
August 20, 2024

Document
Agenda Packet
Meeting
August 20, 2024
Body
Salinas City Council
Pages
21
Original file
90.5 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on salinas.legistar.com. That file is the official record.

Version: November 2022
AGREEMENT —AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSULTANTS/CONTRACTORS BETWEEN HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES,

A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND CITY OF SALINAS
This Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement for Professional Services (the “Amendment”) is entered into this 6th day of August 2024, by and between the City of Salinas (the “City”) and Harris and Associates, a California Corporation, (the “Consultant). City and Consultant may be individually referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively the City and Consultant may be referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City and Consultant first entered into an Agreement for Professional Services for Environmental Consultants/Contractors effective December 22, 2022, pursuant to which Consultant agreed to act as and provide certain services to the City for compensation (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the City and Consultant amended the Agreement on October 24, 2023 to increase compensation for additional scope of services; and
WHEREAS, the City and Consultant desire to further amend the Agreement to 1) extend the term of the Agreement to September 1, 2026 and 2) increase compensation for additional scope of services.

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

TERMS

1. The Agreement, Section 1 “Scope of Service”, is amended and restated in its entirety with the following:

The project contemplated and the scope of Consultant’s services are described in Exhibits B, B1 and B2, attached hereto and incorporated by herein reference.

2. The Agreement, Section 2 “Term: Completion Schedule”, is amended and restated in its entirety with the following:

This Agreement shall commence on December 22, 2022, and shall terminate on September 1, 2026, unless extended in writing by either party upon (30) days written notice. This Agreement may be extended for one (1) optional one (1) year period only upon written consent of the parties and may be terminated only pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

3. The Agreement, Section 3 “Compensation”, is amended and restated in its entirety with the following:

City hereby agrees to pay Consultant for services rendered the City pursuant to this Agreement on a time and materials basis according to the rates of compensation set forth in Exhibits B, B1, and B2. The total amount of compensation to be paid under this Agreement shall not exceed six hundred and ninety-six thousand, one hundred and ninety-three dollars ($696,193).

4. All other covenants, terms, and conditions set forth in the Agreement and not amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Version: November 2022
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, as authorized representatives of the City and Consultant have entered into this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF SALINAS
___________________________________
Rene Mendez, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
□ Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
□ Rhonda Combs, Assistant City Attorney
CONSULTANT:

HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES
____________________________________
Frank Lopez
Principal

1 MEMORANDUM
To: Heidi Niggemeyer, NPDES Program Manager, City of Salinas From: Kate Elliott and The Harris Team
RE: Scope of Work for the Santa Rita Creek Flood Control Project and CCWG Ryder Ranch Mitigation Bank Evaluation
Date: July 25, 2024
Introduction
The Harris Team (Harris & Associates, EcoSystems West Consulting Group, Albion Environmental, and Waterways Consulting, Inc.) will assist the City of Salinas (City) with the Santa Rita Creek Flood Control Project1 (Project), including flood control management, mitigation, and habitat enhancement of Santa Rita Creek. To capture opportunities to assess sensitive resources in the proper seasons, the following scope of work is proposed to be implemented from December 2024 through September 1, 2026.

This proposed Project involves two discrete sections of the creek within the City limits, the lower portion of the creek from Van Buren Avenue to Highway 101, which was the subject of past studies by the Harris Team, and the upper portion of the creek from Russel Road to Van Buren Avenue. Recently (finalized in January 2024) Waterways Consulting, Inc. conducted a Feasibility Study of both reaches of the creek to identify critical locations along Santa Rita Creek to target for flood control actions, including sediment removal and bank slope stabilization. Past studies on the lower portion of Santa Rita Creek and the Feasibility Study of the entire creek within City limits would inform this Project.

To facilitate the Project, the Harris Team will perform the following tasks:

1. Project Management and Detailed Project Description

2. Technical Studies

3. CEQA Compliance/Documentation

4. Regulatory Compliance/Permitting

5. Santa Rita Creek Maintenance Plan and Conceptual Mitigation Plan

6. Conceptual and Engineering Design Plans

7. CCWG Ryder Ranch Mitigation Evaluation

8. Permit Fees
Working with the City to understand their needs, the Harris Team will draft a detailed Project Description describing proposed flood control actions. The first step will be to work with City and Waterways to develop Project Area/s proposed for management actions. Conceptual Designs and Engineering Design Plans for the Project and the Harris Team will focus aquatic, biotic, and cultural resources assessments on the specified locations (Project Areas) identified from the Feasibility Study and based on communication with the City regarding maintenance needs. The Project Description, plans and assessments will provide the basis for project permitting, conceptual mitigation, and inform future maintenance activities. 1 This discrete Project is part of the City of Salinas Creeks and Wetlands Maintenance Plan and Mitigation and Enhancement Program.

Exhibit B2
2 Task 1. Project Management and Detailed Project Description Task 1.1 – Project Management and Coordination
The Harris Team will work closely with the City to meet the City’s needs for flood control (sediment management and maintenance), mitigation, and habitat enhancement. Our primary goal for Task 1.1 will be to effectively track Project meetings, tasks, timelines, and schedule to ensure cost effectiveness and efficiency at accomplishing Project goals to move the Project to implementation. The Harris Team will prepare the detailed Project Description for review by the City (Task 1.3) as the Project advances toward Permitting (Task 4).

Task 1.2 – Meetings with City Staff
The Harris Team will meet with City Staff to define current and future maintenance practices that the City performs/will perform within Santa Rita Creek. Maintenance Plan actions may include, but are not limited to, flood management/sediment control, bank stabilization, erosion control, outfall structure maintenance and repair, flood gate maintenance and repair (coordinate with NPDES program), culvert maintenance, repair and replacement, and vegetation management.

NPDES MS4 Program
The Harris Team reviewed those features, structures, and maintenance actions subject to the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program.

Municipal discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater from all municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) discharge points within the City’s boundaries are subject to waste discharge requirements under Order R3-2019- 0073 and NPDES as issued by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for the period October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2024. These MS4 discharges are regulated under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as well as Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and other applicable state, federal, and regional regulations.

The creeks within the City’s jurisdiction and the Salinas River are considered receiving waters for municipal discharges and, as such, under the NPDES MS4 Program, are subject to the City’s Pollutant Load Reduction Plan (PLRP), Stormwater Resource Plan (SRP), List of Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs)2 , and
Maintenance Plan for MS4 components (for both the conveyance system and structural BMPs).

Only features that are in federal jurisdiction are in need of additional permitting for impacts associated with flood control and other maintenance activities. The Harris Team will clearly define the features and activities already covered under existing NPDES permit and identify potential overlap and interaction between NPDES maintenance activities and those activities proposed for flood control and other preventative maintenance.

Santa Rita Creek Elementary School
Flood control actions, habitat restoration, and mitigation for Santa Rita Creek will incorporate and dovetail with existing enhancements conducted at Santa Rita Creek Elementary School. The Harris Team will investigate opportunities to expand the existing program and/or create habitat continuity along the portion of Santa Rita Creek that consists of an earthen channel (from Santa Rita Street to Russel Road) where these actions would not conflict with the City’s maintenance needs.
2 Structural BMPs are infrastructure/facilities that are constructed or installed to prevent pollutants in storm water runoff from leaving a developed property, entering storm drains, and impacting our local waterways, and include sediment basins, vegetated swales, and other types of catchments. All types of structural BMPs require regular inspection and maintenance to ensure that they are operating effectively, so the City maintains all of their existing sediment basins and some creeks under the maintenance requirements of the NPDES permit.

Task 1.3 – Draft and Final Detailed Project Description Harris & Associates and EcoSystems West will continue to work with the City to prepare the Detailed Project Description. The Detailed Project Description includes an overview of the Santa Rita Creek and creek-related resources within City boundaries, a description of the existing maintenance activities, proposed flood control actions (Project), and anticipated future maintenance. The Project Description will utilize Waterways Feasibility Study to identify management and maintenance actions along with the City’s needs for sediment removal and other key maintenance activities. Together with the City, the Harris Team will identify the Project Area/s (see also Task 2.2 below) and Area of Potential Effect (APE) (see also Task 2.4 below) The Detailed Project Description will be developed in compliance with existing regulatory requirements and guidance documents (e.g., NPDES programs, relevant City planning documents), as determined in coordination with the City. The Detailed Project Description will identify future maintenance activities based on hydrologic analysis, proposed mitigation and enhancement sites, the type of feature proposed, construction requirements, and a descriptive overview of the activities required to maintain these features. These activities would be subject to approval by the relevant regulatory agencies and would be developed in consultation with the agencies, which are anticipated to include the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board or RWQCB).

Task 1 Meetings, Deliverables, and Assumptions:
• The Harris Team will attend up to 4 field meetings with City personnel to discuss the City’s current and future maintenance activity needs.
• With City approval, the Harris Team will attend up to 3 meetings with Project stakeholders, as relevant (e.g. Santa Rita Elementary School and the Community Foundation regarding creek enhancement opportunities and Central Coast Wetlands Group for potential mitigation opportunities) to identify opportunities to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for potential impacts associated with the Project.
• This scope assumes that the partnerships and coordination with other stakeholders will be developed to a viable conceptual level, which will be further developed as part of the Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Task 5).
• The Harris Team will prepare the Draft and Final Project Description for City. This scope assumes there will be one round of review of the draft Project Description (Task 1.3), the City will provide one set of consolidated comments, and the comments will not require major changes to the document. • Working with the City, the Harris Team will identify the proposed Project Area/s and Area of Potential Effect (APE) (see also Task 2.2 and Task 2.4) Task 2. Technical Studies
Technical assessments and studies will be prepared for aquatic resources, biological resources, and cultural resources, as well as hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, to provide the scientific basis for the permitting process, and to allow the Harris Team to provide a quantitative impact assessment to the regulatory agencies. The technical studies also enable us to work with the City to minimize impacts through careful design of current and future maintenance activities, and to identify suitable locations for mitigation and enhancement.

Task 2.1 – Assessment of Aquatic Resources (Jurisdictional Delineation) A reconnaissance assessment of aquatic resources was conducted for the lower portion of the creek during previous (2020) studies. Within the Project Areas identified for flood control activities, the wetlands specialist will update the existing map of aquatic features for the lower portion of the creek and map the upper portion of 4 the creek. The wetlands specialist will collect sample points at representative locations, as needed, to support the aquatic resources delineation.

Waters and wetlands (aquatic resources) of the U.S. are protected under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), and impacts to these resources require mitigation. An aquatic resources delineation determines the extent of wetlands and waters of the U.S. within the City’s defined Maintenance Plan areas and will be submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) during permitting. An aquatic resource delineation is valid for 3 years following verification by the USACE (with subsequent renewal possible).

EcoSystems West will map the relevant aquatic features and adjacent habitats using ArcGIS and resource-grade GPS. Waterways and EcoSystems West will identify and map the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) of the creek and wetland boundaries to determine the jurisdiction of the USACE. EcoSystems West will delineate the break in bank and/or boundary of the riparian habitat to determine the jurisdiction of the Regional Board and CDFW. These boundaries will be depicted in ArcGIS shapefiles, geodatabase, and maps.

EcoSystems West will prepare a draft aquatic resources delineation report for the proposed Project Areas within Santa Rita Creek. This delineation of wetlands and “other waters” of the U.S. would be prepared using protocols outlined in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplements to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0 (Environmental Laboratory 2008). The USACE defines three criteria to delineate wetlands: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) wetland hydrology, and (3) hydric soils. The OHWM is defined as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” The draft of the delineation report would be submitted to the City for review, comment, and approval prior to submittal of the final report to the USACE.

Task 2.1 Meetings, Deliverables, and Assumptions:
• GIS files and maps of aquatic features and riparian habitat subject to maintenance activities within the City’s boundaries.
• Draft and final Aquatic Resources Delineation for Santa Rita Creek. • EcoSystems West will attend one (1) meeting in the field with USACE personnel, as needed, to confirm the aquatic resources delineation.

Task 2.2 – Recommended Project Actions and Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling Waterways will identify key areas along Santa Rita Creek proposed for management and maintenance actions, based on the Feasibility Study performed in 2023 and completed in January 2024. Together with the City, Waterways and the Harris Team will identify the Project Area/s and Waterways will develop Conceptual Plans for the purposes of discussion and analysis. As determined to be necessary, Waterways will perform topographic mapping at selected sediment management zones to update channel geometry based on current sediment accumulations. Waterways will develop a hydraulic model of the channel and floodplain, as needed to support the proposed Project actions. These studies will inform design geometry and channel and bank treatments. A FEMA-certified no-rise analysis of the 100-year floodplain will also be conducted to demonstrate the project will not increase flood heights in the surrounding areas.

Task 2.2 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Recommended Project Actions
• Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling
• GIS Files and Maps of Relevant Data
• Mapping/Modeling of the OHWM
Task 2.3 – Biotic Assessment
A biotic assessment, which characterizes the biological resources within the proposed Project Areas is required for regulatory compliance and will be submitted to the City, USACE [which may consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)-listed species are present], Regional Board, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) during the permitting process.

The Harris Team will identify sensitive biological resource data from USFWS, CDFW, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); and other recognized lists of sensitive resources focusing on the specified Project Areas.

Additionally, the team has communicated with other local experts about occurrences of sensitive wildlife species, including federally Threatened California red-legged frog (CRLF) that have not been recorded in official databases. Based on this research and these sources, we will develop target lists of sensitive plant and wildlife species with potential to occur in the Santa Rita Creek.

The biotic assessment will describe the biological resources present or potentially present in Santa Rita Creek.

The biotic assessment will include a discussion of existing habitat conditions, documented occurrence of sensitive species in the maintenance areas, potential impacts, and measures to avoid, mimimize, or mitigate for adverse impacts.

The Harris Team will use resource grade-GPS and ArcGIS to map sensitive habitats adjacent to aquatic features.

All biological resources will be presented in detailed maps or mapbooks. The mapbooks will also depict potential impacts and inform protective measures as well as the development of the Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Task 5) and Conceptual and Engineering Design Plans (Task 6).

A draft of the biotic assessment will be submitted to the City for review, comment, and approval prior to submittal to the agencies.

Task 2.3 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Draft and Final Biotic Assessment for Santa Rita Creek. • Map/s of Biological Resources (sensitive habitats, plants, wildlife species, and wildlife movement). • This scope assumes that there will be one round of review of the Draft Biotic Assessment, the City will provide one set of consolidated comments, and the comments will not require major changes to the document.

Task 2.4 – Cultural and Historical Resources Report
Maintenance activities that fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE (and are subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) also must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Native American tribes.

The Harris Team will identify and map the Project Area [Area(s) of Potential Effect (APE)], on which direct ground disturbance may occur. The APE boundaries will define the limits of cultural resources studies including 6 background research, an updated records search, tribal outreach, and field survey. Albion Environmental will assess whether any cultural and historic built resources are located directly in or adjacent to the areas of proposed ground disturbance.

Albion’s background research will include conducting a cultural and historic resources records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), requesting information related to Native American resources from the Native American Heritage Commission, and any Native American contacts that are identified by the Commission, reviewing historical maps and documents, and conducting a desktop geoarchaeological review of local soil conditions for evidence of potential buried cultural resources. When possible, the results of these efforts will be used to help guide ground disturbing activities that may impact known cultural resources or refine proposed work in areas that have been identified as sensitive for supporting cultural resources.

A pedestrian field survey will be conducted to identify previously undocumented archaeological and historic built resources visible on the ground surface. The archaeologist will carefully inspect the ground surface to identify artifacts, features, and infrastructure, and assess the local geomorphic context. If resources are identified, the survey team would document them for future study.

The results of Albion’s study will be compiled into a technical report to be used for regulatory compliance. The report will contain an abstract, introduction, natural and cultural context, results of background research, results of Tribal outreach, field methods, survey results, summary and discussion of cultural resource sensitivity for the APE, and if needed, recommendations for additional work needed to complete requirements under NHPA regulations. The report will also include completed site records for any sites or isolates identified during survey.

Task 2.4 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Draft and Final Cultural Resources Report
• Outreach letters to Native American stakeholders
Task 3. CEQA Compliance/Documentation
In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Harris will prepare the appropriate CEQA documentation for the Plan. We will first explore the use of an exemption from CEQA. If the plan does not meet the requirements for an exemption, an initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) would likely be required.

Task 3.1 – CEQA Exemption
The Harris team in coordination with the City will explore the use of the following exemptions.

Categorical Exemption – Minor Alterations to Land (CEQA Guidelines 15304). Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include but are not limited to:
• Maintenance dredging where the spoil is deposited in a spoil area authorized by all applicable state and local regulatory agencies (g).

Task 3.1 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Draft and Final Notice of Exemption with Supporting Documentation • For the purposes of this scope of work and cost estimate, it is assumed that an exemption applies.

However, the appropriate CEQA documentation will be determined once the detailed Project Description is complete.

Task 4. Regulatory Compliance/Permitting
This regulatory compliance/permitting task includes on-going consultation with the agencies, the preparation of permit application packages, and additional agency coordination/consultation to finalize permit requirements.

For one-time sediment removal, EcoSystems will utilize the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling conducted by Waterways (Task 2.2) to identify impacts associated with construction activities (sediment removal, construction of an alternate flow channel, and bank slope stabilization and reconstruction) to restore flood capacity in each creek. We will also calculate on-going impacts associated with new proposed maintenance regimes.

Task 4.1 –Agency Consultation
The Harris Team will coordinate with the agencies in advance to facilitate permit approval for the actions proposed in the project such that the City will comply with the federal Clean Water Act, federal and state Endangered Species Acts, National Historic Preservation Act, and Fish and Game Codes.

Once the permit applications and reports are submitted to the agencies [USACE (USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, SHPO), Regional Board, and CDFW] (Task 4.2 below), there is typically additional agency coordination and information required to finalize and obtain the permits.

As a result of studies conducted in 2020, Harris and EcoSystems West have had several communications with the resources agencies regarding the proposed project and agency requirements for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation.

The Harris Team will continue to coordinate with the agencies regarding mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive management requirements to offset impacts from implementation of the Project. The Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Task 5.2) would be developed in conjunction with the regulatory agencies.

Task 4.1 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• After permit application submittal, Harris will provide regular email updates to the City. • This scope assumes that the agencies will not require major changes to the permit packages, other than the refinement of the Conceptual Mitigation Plan. In the event that additional coordination is determined to be necessary (e.g. if it is determined that a more developed Habitat Mitigation and Management Plan is required by the agencies), a scope and budget augment would be requested.

Task 4.2 Permit Packages
Impacts to natural resources associated with Project implementation (including impacts that occur within the 100-year flood elevation to riparian habitats, wetlands, and other biological resources) require regulatory compliance with CWA Section 404 (USACE), CWA Section 401 (Regional Board), and California Fish and Game Codes (CDFW).

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
This task includes preparation of the relevant USACE permit application form with a detailed description of the Project and permanent and temporary impacts to waters of the U.S. The figures for this report will be prepared using Engineering Design Plans for flood control actions. The Aquatic Resources Delineation (Task 2.1) will illustrate the type and extent of aquatic resources, including creeks and wetlands, within the Project Areas. The Harris Team will depict impacts to aquatic resources by overlaying Engineering Design Plans onto the aquatic resources shape files using ArcGIS.

The permit package will include the Aquatic Resources Delineation report (prepared in Task 2.1), the Biotic Assessment (prepared in Task 2.3), and the Cultural and Historical Resources report (prepared in Task 2.4). A 8 draft application package will be submitted to the City for review, comment, and approval prior to submittal to the USACE.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
If adverse effects to federally-listed species or critical habitat may occur, the USACE would initiate consultation with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the FESA. Our qualified biologists will prepare sufficient documentation, with a thorough review of federally-listed species and/or habitats present at or near the Project Areas, for submittal to the USACE for formal consultation with USFWS.

Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board)
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) must be obtained from the Regional Board for impacts to wetlands, waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the state. Therefore, this task includes preparing an application for WQC/WDR, as appropriate, for submittal to the Regional Board that would be based, in large part, on the information developed for the USACE permit application.

The application package will include a cover letter, description of existing conditions, discussion of impacts to aquatic features (including riparian habitat), description of avoidance and minimization measures, and a completed application form. The application package will also include demonstration of CEQA compliance (Task 3) and analysis of impacts to biological resources (Task 2.3). A draft of the WQC application package would be submitted to the City for review, comment, and approval prior to submittal to the Regional Board. A permit processing/filing fee will be required from the City at the time of application submittal. The fee amount will be based on the extent of temporary and permanent impacts.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
The CDFW has jurisdiction over creeks below the break-in-bank and/or associated riparian habitat that may be impacted by project activities. As such, this task includes preparing an application for a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) pursuant to Section 1602 of CFGC. The application would include a cover letter, standard notification form, CEQA compliance (Task 3), and other necessary attachments (wetland delineation, figures, plans, biological assessment (Task 2.3). A draft of the LSAA application package will be submitted to the City for review, comment, and approval prior to submittal to CDFW. An application filing/processing fee will be required from the City at the time of application submittal. The fee amount is based on the cost of the proposed work in CDFW’s jurisdiction.

Task 4.2 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Permitting packages for USACE (and USFWS), Regional Board, and CDFW regulatory compliance. • This scope assumes that, for each permitting package, there will be one round of review, the City will provide one set of consolidated comments, and the comments will not require major changes to the permitting package.
• All permit fees are included in this scope of work (Task 8). • This task includes 4 sites visits with agency personnel. 9 Task 5. Santa Rita Creek Maintenance and Conceptual Mitigation Plan The Harris Team will work with the City to develop a plan for future maintenance activities necessary to retain flood control within Natividad Creek and Gabilan Creek (a component of the Project). In addition, we will draft a conceptual plan to mitigate for impacts associated with all aspects of the Project, including proposed flood control actions and future maintenance activities.

Task 5.1 Santa Rita Creek Maintenance Plan
Future maintenance activities will likely be required to retain flood capacity within Santa Rita Creek to protect public safety. The Maintenance Plan will include a descriptive overview of the activities required to maintain these features, ideally at discrete accessible locations designed to capture sediments. These activities would be subject to approval by the relevant regulatory agencies including USACE, CDFW, and the Regional Board. The overall goal of the Project is to reduce the need and increase the interval for on-going maintenance. The Harris Team will work with the City to develop a feasible future maintenance plan.

Task 5.2 Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Implementation of the Project (flood control actions, one-time sediment removal and on-going maintenance activities) will require a Conceptual Mitigation Plan to compensate for impacts to aquatic resources and adjacent riparian habitats.

Substantial comprehensive work has been done over a period of many years to describe and analyze regional, County-wide, and City-wide aquatic resources, stormwater, pollution, and sediment loads in the City and Monterey County, and in the Salinas River watershed. Our goal is to avoid duplication of efforts, to draw upon the resources developed to date, and take advantage of existing programs that could improve efficiency and reduce costs. To that end, the Conceptual Mitigation Plan includes the following components:

A) Flood Control Actions Conceptual Designs and Engineering Design Plans (Task 6); and B) Habitat Restoration/Enhancement opportunities within the City limits.

To this end, the Conceptual Mitigation Plan would include the following sections:
• Project Description (Task 1), including existing flood management/sediment control; bank stabilization; erosion control; and future proposed maintenance actions required to maintain flood control. • Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling.
• Ecological enhancement opportunities within City creeks and wetlands. • Reduce pollution in City creeks using natural vegetative treatment filtration systems such as bioswales positioned at key locations.
• Enhance ecological functions and values of aquatic and riparian habitat in creek corridors and wetlands through invasive species removal, and native plant restoration compatible with flood management objectives (i.e., this would not include planting willows in flood corridors). • Improve in-stream and near-stream infiltration/percolation of surface flows into the aquifer through design where possible.
• Manage open spaces adjacent to creeks and wetlands to improve the community benefits of the creeks and riparian corridors, and to deter unregulated encampments and the associated potential impacts on public safety (including fire prevention), water quality, and on the ecological integrity of the City’s creeks and wetlands.
10 Task 5 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Up to three (3) meetings with City personnel to discuss Maintenance Plan and Mitigation Plan goals • The Harris Team will attend meetings partners to further coordinate and develop agreements to avoid, prevent, minimize, and mitigate for potential impacts associated with the Project (Task 1) • Draft and Final Maintenance Plan (electronic format)
• Draft and Final Conceptual Mitigation Plan (electronic format) • This scope assumes that meetings with partners will not exceed six (6) total hours. In the event that additional coordination is determined to be necessary, a scope and budget augment would be requested.
• This scope assumes that there will be one (1) round of review, the City will provide one set of consolidated comments, and the comments will not require major changes to the program.

Task 6. Conceptual and Engineering Design Plans
Based on the Feasibility Study conducted during 2023 and finalized in January 2024, Waterways will prepare plans and specifications detailing proposed sediment and vegetation management actions, ideally so that maintenance (sediment and vegetation removal) would occur in discrete locations to improve maintenance efficiency, reduce maintenance costs, and reduce on-going impacts to the City’s creeks. These plans will be developed in communication with the City to meet the City’s needs for on-going flood control, management, and maintenance.

Waterways will prepare conceptual designs, and 65% and 100% engineering design plans.

Task 6 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Up to three (3) meetings with City personnel to discuss proposed features and designs • Conceptual Plans (electronic format)
• 65% and 100% Engineering Design Plans and Technical Specifications • This scope assumes that there will be two (2) rounds of review for conceptual plans and two (2) rounds of review for engineering design plans.

Task 7. CCWG Ryder Ranch Mitigation Bank Evaluation
To support the City’s pursuit of Ryder Ranch as a mitigation site, Central Coast Wetlands Group (CCWG) will evaluate the site and develop the mitigation project as follows.

Task 7.1 Site Evaluation
• Participate in meetings and conduct preliminary field visit • Conduct site evaluations to define restoration project opportunities and constraints • Complete land appraisal process as needed for grant funding • Iteratively present concept projects to identify opportunities and define constraints Task 7.2 Project Development
• Develop cost estimates for full project design, construction, operations and maintenance, and an implementation timeline for each project
• Work with landowner to fully develop the acquisition agreement and project goals Cost Estimate
The cost estimate to conduct the work described above is $332,325.00 (Attachment A).

Attachments
A. Cost Estimate
Task 8. Permit Fees
The following permit fees are estimates (based on impact acreages and project construction costs), and the final fee amounts will be determined by the regulatory agencies.

8.1 Lower Gabilan Permit Fees - $10,000

8.2 Upper Gabilan Permit Fees - $10,000

8.3 Upper Natividad Permit Fees - $20,000

8.4 Santa Rita Permit Fees - $20,000
11 Attachment A. Santa Rita Creek Flood Control Project* and Ryder Ranch Mitigation Bank Evaluation Mitigation
$285.00 $160.00 $155.00 $160.00 $190.00 $170.00 $170.00 $140.00 $200.00 $150.00 $140.00 $220.00 Appraisal Cost Mileage Permit Fees Mileage Task 1: Project Management and Detailed Project Description (Phase 01)

1.1 Project Management and Coordination 40.0 24.0 40.0 20.0 8.0 $ 27,960.00

1.2 Meetings with City Staff (Bi-Weekly Dec 2024 - Dec 2025) 24.0 12.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 $ 22,080.00

1.3 Draft and Final Detailed Project Description 24.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 24.0 10.0 $ 14,550.00 Hours Subtotal 88 0 2 4 36 28 88 0 54 8 0 0
Task 1 Subtotal $25,080.00 $0.00 $310.00 $640.00 $6,840.00 $4,760.00 $14,960.00 $0.00 $10,800.00 $1,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $64,590.00 Task 2: Technical Studies (Phase 02)

2.1 Assessment of Aquatic Resources (Jurisdictional Delineation) 8.0 2.0 56.0 4.0 8.0 4.0 $ 108.00 $ 14,168.00

2.2 Recommended Project Actions and Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling 24.0 24.0 40.0 20.0 $ 18,400.00

2.3 Biotic Assessment 4.0 20.0 16.0 2.0 40.0 40.0 28.0 $ 216.00 $ 25,016.00

2.4 Cultural and Historical Resources Report 4.0 $ 12,000.00 $ 13,140.00 Hours Subtotal 8.0 20 0 24 4 96 44 28 32.0 28 40 20
Task 2 Subtotal $2,280.00 $3,200.00 $0.00 $3,840.00 $760.00 $16,320.00 $7,480.00 $3,920.00 $6,400.00 $4,200.00 $5,600.00 $4,400.00 $ - $ 12,000.00 $ - $ 324.00 $ - $ - $70,724.00 Task 3: CEQA Compliance/Documentation (Phase 03)

3.1 CEQA Exemption 8.0 16.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 $ 5,995.00
Hours Subtotal 8.0 16 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
Task 3 Subtotal $2,280.00 $2,560.00 $155.00 $320.00 $0.00 $340.00 $340.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $5,995.00 Task 4: Regulatory Compliance/Permitting (Phase 04)

4.1 Agency Consultation 4.0 12.0 24.0 8.0 12.0 $ - $ - $ 10,280.00

4.2 Permit Packages 8.0 4.0 32.0 96.0 40.0 $ 200.00 $ 29,600.00 Hours Subtotal 0.0 0 0 8 8 44 120 40 8 12 0 0
Task 4 Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,280.00 $1,520.00 $7,480.00 $20,400.00 $5,600.00 $1,600.00 $1,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 200.00 $ - $ - $39,880.00 Task 5: Santa Rita Creek Maintenance and Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Phase 05)

5.1 Santa Rita Creek Maintenance Plan 4.0 4.0 4.0 14.0 12.0 $ 7,100.00

5.2 Conceptual Mitigation Plan 4.0 12.0 4.0 12.0 40.0 16.0 $ 14,900.00 Hours Subtotal 8.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 4.0 16.0 44.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 Task 5 Subtotal $2,280.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,920.00 $760.00 $2,720.00 $7,480.00 $2,240.00 $2,800.00 $1,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $22,000.00 Task 6: Conceptual and Engineering Design Plans (Phase 06)

6.1 Conceptual Design Plans 2.0 2.0 1.0 24.0 50.0 $ 108.00 $ 13,228.00

6.2 Engineering Design Plans 4.0 4.0 1.0 60.0 100.0 $ 216.00 $ 28,716.00 Hours Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 84.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 Task 6 Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,020.00 $1,020.00 $280.00 $16,800.00 $22,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 324.00 $41,944.00 Task 7: Central Coast Wetlands Group Support (Phase 07)

7.1 Site Evaluation
Participate in Meeetings and Conduct Preliminary Field Visit $ 1,820.00 $ 1,820.00 Conduct site evaluations to define restoration project opportunities & constraints $ 780.00 $ 780.00 Complete land appraisal process as needed by City for grant funding $ 780.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,780.00 Iteratively present concept projects to identify opportunities and define constraints $ 4,160.00 $ 4,160.00

7.2 Project Development $ -
Develop cost estimates for full project design, construction, operations and $ 2,080.00 $ 2,080.00 maintenance, and an implementation timeline for each project $ - Work with landowner to fully develop the acquisition agreement and project goals $ 2,080.00 $ 2,080.00 Hours Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Task 7 Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ 11,700.00 $ - $ 5,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $16,700.00 Task 8: Permit Fees* (Phase 08)

8.1 Lower Gabilan Permit Fees $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00

8.2 Upper Gabilan Permit Fees $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00

8.3 Upper Natividad Permit Fees $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

8.4 Santa Rita Permit Fees $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
Hours Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Task 8 Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 60,000.00 $ - $60,000.00 SUBTOTAL TASKS 1-8 $31,920.00 $5,760.00 $465.00 $8,000.00 $9,880.00 $32,640.00 $51,680.00 $12,040.00 $38,400.00 $31,500.00 $5,600.00 $4,400.00 $11,700.00 $12,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 524.00 $ - $ 324.00 $321,833.00 Subconsultant Markup (5%) $494 $1,632 $2,584 $602 $1,920 $1,575 $280 $220 $585 $600 $10,492 TOTAL $332,325.00
Central Coast
Wetlands
Group
Albion Waterways
Craig Stewart
Engineer
2-Person Survey
Crew
EcoSystem
s West
Central Coast
Wetlands
Group
EcoSystem
s West Harris & Associates EcoSystems West
Biologist/Planner Kate Elliott
Project Director
Erin McGinty
Sr Wildlife Biologist/
Project Manager
Bioloigst Justin Davilla Senior
Ecologist
William Davilla
Principal
Randy Deodat
GIS Specialist

DIRECT COSTS
Cultural Resources
Task Description
Fee Matt Weld
Principal Engineer

STAFF HOURS
Waterways
Lovrin Hydrologist Lindsey Messner
Tech Editor
7/25/2024
*This scope includes not only getting the permits, but taking this to a shovel ready project (description, parameters, etc for DPW to implement). **The permit fees are estimates and will be determined by the regulatory agencies. 1 MEMORANDUM
To: Heidi Niggemeyer, NPDES Program Manager, City of Salinas From: Kate Elliott and The Harris Team
RE: Scope of Work for the Santa Rita Creek Flood Control Project and CCWG Ryder Ranch Mitigation Bank Evaluation
Date: July 25, 2024
Introduction
The Harris Team (Harris & Associates, EcoSystems West Consulting Group, Albion Environmental, and Waterways Consulting, Inc.) will assist the City of Salinas (City) with the Santa Rita Creek Flood Control Project1 (Project), including flood control management, mitigation, and habitat enhancement of Santa Rita Creek. To capture opportunities to assess sensitive resources in the proper seasons, the following scope of work is proposed to be implemented from December 2024 through September 1, 2026.

This proposed Project involves two discrete sections of the creek within the City limits, the lower portion of the creek from Van Buren Avenue to Highway 101, which was the subject of past studies by the Harris Team, and the upper portion of the creek from Russel Road to Van Buren Avenue. Recently (finalized in January 2024) Waterways Consulting, Inc. conducted a Feasibility Study of both reaches of the creek to identify critical locations along Santa Rita Creek to target for flood control actions, including sediment removal and bank slope stabilization. Past studies on the lower portion of Santa Rita Creek and the Feasibility Study of the entire creek within City limits would inform this Project.

To facilitate the Project, the Harris Team will perform the following tasks:

1. Project Management and Detailed Project Description

2. Technical Studies

3. CEQA Compliance/Documentation

4. Regulatory Compliance/Permitting

5. Santa Rita Creek Maintenance Plan and Conceptual Mitigation Plan

6. Conceptual and Engineering Design Plans

7. CCWG Ryder Ranch Mitigation Evaluation

8. Permit Fees
Working with the City to understand their needs, the Harris Team will draft a detailed Project Description describing proposed flood control actions. The first step will be to work with City and Waterways to develop Project Area/s proposed for management actions. Conceptual Designs and Engineering Design Plans for the Project and the Harris Team will focus aquatic, biotic, and cultural resources assessments on the specified locations (Project Areas) identified from the Feasibility Study and based on communication with the City regarding maintenance needs. The Project Description, plans and assessments will provide the basis for project permitting, conceptual mitigation, and inform future maintenance activities. 1 This discrete Project is part of the City of Salinas Creeks and Wetlands Maintenance Plan and Mitigation and Enhancement Program.

Exhibit B2
2 Task 1. Project Management and Detailed Project Description Task 1.1 – Project Management and Coordination
The Harris Team will work closely with the City to meet the City’s needs for flood control (sediment management and maintenance), mitigation, and habitat enhancement. Our primary goal for Task 1.1 will be to effectively track Project meetings, tasks, timelines, and schedule to ensure cost effectiveness and efficiency at accomplishing Project goals to move the Project to implementation. The Harris Team will prepare the detailed Project Description for review by the City (Task 1.3) as the Project advances toward Permitting (Task 4).

Task 1.2 – Meetings with City Staff
The Harris Team will meet with City Staff to define current and future maintenance practices that the City performs/will perform within Santa Rita Creek. Maintenance Plan actions may include, but are not limited to, flood management/sediment control, bank stabilization, erosion control, outfall structure maintenance and repair, flood gate maintenance and repair (coordinate with NPDES program), culvert maintenance, repair and replacement, and vegetation management.

NPDES MS4 Program
The Harris Team reviewed those features, structures, and maintenance actions subject to the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program.

Municipal discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater from all municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) discharge points within the City’s boundaries are subject to waste discharge requirements under Order R3-2019- 0073 and NPDES as issued by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for the period October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2024. These MS4 discharges are regulated under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as well as Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and other applicable state, federal, and regional regulations.

The creeks within the City’s jurisdiction and the Salinas River are considered receiving waters for municipal discharges and, as such, under the NPDES MS4 Program, are subject to the City’s Pollutant Load Reduction Plan (PLRP), Stormwater Resource Plan (SRP), List of Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs)2 , and
Maintenance Plan for MS4 components (for both the conveyance system and structural BMPs).

Only features that are in federal jurisdiction are in need of additional permitting for impacts associated with flood control and other maintenance activities. The Harris Team will clearly define the features and activities already covered under existing NPDES permit and identify potential overlap and interaction between NPDES maintenance activities and those activities proposed for flood control and other preventative maintenance.

Santa Rita Creek Elementary School
Flood control actions, habitat restoration, and mitigation for Santa Rita Creek will incorporate and dovetail with existing enhancements conducted at Santa Rita Creek Elementary School. The Harris Team will investigate opportunities to expand the existing program and/or create habitat continuity along the portion of Santa Rita Creek that consists of an earthen channel (from Santa Rita Street to Russel Road) where these actions would not conflict with the City’s maintenance needs.
2 Structural BMPs are infrastructure/facilities that are constructed or installed to prevent pollutants in storm water runoff from leaving a developed property, entering storm drains, and impacting our local waterways, and include sediment basins, vegetated swales, and other types of catchments. All types of structural BMPs require regular inspection and maintenance to ensure that they are operating effectively, so the City maintains all of their existing sediment basins and some creeks under the maintenance requirements of the NPDES permit.

Task 1.3 – Draft and Final Detailed Project Description Harris & Associates and EcoSystems West will continue to work with the City to prepare the Detailed Project Description. The Detailed Project Description includes an overview of the Santa Rita Creek and creek-related resources within City boundaries, a description of the existing maintenance activities, proposed flood control actions (Project), and anticipated future maintenance. The Project Description will utilize Waterways Feasibility Study to identify management and maintenance actions along with the City’s needs for sediment removal and other key maintenance activities. Together with the City, the Harris Team will identify the Project Area/s (see also Task 2.2 below) and Area of Potential Effect (APE) (see also Task 2.4 below) The Detailed Project Description will be developed in compliance with existing regulatory requirements and guidance documents (e.g., NPDES programs, relevant City planning documents), as determined in coordination with the City. The Detailed Project Description will identify future maintenance activities based on hydrologic analysis, proposed mitigation and enhancement sites, the type of feature proposed, construction requirements, and a descriptive overview of the activities required to maintain these features. These activities would be subject to approval by the relevant regulatory agencies and would be developed in consultation with the agencies, which are anticipated to include the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board or RWQCB).

Task 1 Meetings, Deliverables, and Assumptions:
• The Harris Team will attend up to 4 field meetings with City personnel to discuss the City’s current and future maintenance activity needs.
• With City approval, the Harris Team will attend up to 3 meetings with Project stakeholders, as relevant (e.g. Santa Rita Elementary School and the Community Foundation regarding creek enhancement opportunities and Central Coast Wetlands Group for potential mitigation opportunities) to identify opportunities to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for potential impacts associated with the Project.
• This scope assumes that the partnerships and coordination with other stakeholders will be developed to a viable conceptual level, which will be further developed as part of the Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Task 5).
• The Harris Team will prepare the Draft and Final Project Description for City. This scope assumes there will be one round of review of the draft Project Description (Task 1.3), the City will provide one set of consolidated comments, and the comments will not require major changes to the document. • Working with the City, the Harris Team will identify the proposed Project Area/s and Area of Potential Effect (APE) (see also Task 2.2 and Task 2.4) Task 2. Technical Studies
Technical assessments and studies will be prepared for aquatic resources, biological resources, and cultural resources, as well as hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, to provide the scientific basis for the permitting process, and to allow the Harris Team to provide a quantitative impact assessment to the regulatory agencies. The technical studies also enable us to work with the City to minimize impacts through careful design of current and future maintenance activities, and to identify suitable locations for mitigation and enhancement.

Task 2.1 – Assessment of Aquatic Resources (Jurisdictional Delineation) A reconnaissance assessment of aquatic resources was conducted for the lower portion of the creek during previous (2020) studies. Within the Project Areas identified for flood control activities, the wetlands specialist will update the existing map of aquatic features for the lower portion of the creek and map the upper portion of 4 the creek. The wetlands specialist will collect sample points at representative locations, as needed, to support the aquatic resources delineation.

Waters and wetlands (aquatic resources) of the U.S. are protected under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), and impacts to these resources require mitigation. An aquatic resources delineation determines the extent of wetlands and waters of the U.S. within the City’s defined Maintenance Plan areas and will be submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) during permitting. An aquatic resource delineation is valid for 3 years following verification by the USACE (with subsequent renewal possible).

EcoSystems West will map the relevant aquatic features and adjacent habitats using ArcGIS and resource-grade GPS. Waterways and EcoSystems West will identify and map the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) of the creek and wetland boundaries to determine the jurisdiction of the USACE. EcoSystems West will delineate the break in bank and/or boundary of the riparian habitat to determine the jurisdiction of the Regional Board and CDFW. These boundaries will be depicted in ArcGIS shapefiles, geodatabase, and maps.

EcoSystems West will prepare a draft aquatic resources delineation report for the proposed Project Areas within Santa Rita Creek. This delineation of wetlands and “other waters” of the U.S. would be prepared using protocols outlined in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplements to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0 (Environmental Laboratory 2008). The USACE defines three criteria to delineate wetlands: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) wetland hydrology, and (3) hydric soils. The OHWM is defined as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” The draft of the delineation report would be submitted to the City for review, comment, and approval prior to submittal of the final report to the USACE.

Task 2.1 Meetings, Deliverables, and Assumptions:
• GIS files and maps of aquatic features and riparian habitat subject to maintenance activities within the City’s boundaries.
• Draft and final Aquatic Resources Delineation for Santa Rita Creek. • EcoSystems West will attend one (1) meeting in the field with USACE personnel, as needed, to confirm the aquatic resources delineation.

Task 2.2 – Recommended Project Actions and Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling Waterways will identify key areas along Santa Rita Creek proposed for management and maintenance actions, based on the Feasibility Study performed in 2023 and completed in January 2024. Together with the City, Waterways and the Harris Team will identify the Project Area/s and Waterways will develop Conceptual Plans for the purposes of discussion and analysis. As determined to be necessary, Waterways will perform topographic mapping at selected sediment management zones to update channel geometry based on current sediment accumulations. Waterways will develop a hydraulic model of the channel and floodplain, as needed to support the proposed Project actions. These studies will inform design geometry and channel and bank treatments. A FEMA-certified no-rise analysis of the 100-year floodplain will also be conducted to demonstrate the project will not increase flood heights in the surrounding areas.

Task 2.2 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Recommended Project Actions
• Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling
• GIS Files and Maps of Relevant Data
• Mapping/Modeling of the OHWM
Task 2.3 – Biotic Assessment
A biotic assessment, which characterizes the biological resources within the proposed Project Areas is required for regulatory compliance and will be submitted to the City, USACE [which may consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)-listed species are present], Regional Board, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) during the permitting process.

The Harris Team will identify sensitive biological resource data from USFWS, CDFW, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); and other recognized lists of sensitive resources focusing on the specified Project Areas.

Additionally, the team has communicated with other local experts about occurrences of sensitive wildlife species, including federally Threatened California red-legged frog (CRLF) that have not been recorded in official databases. Based on this research and these sources, we will develop target lists of sensitive plant and wildlife species with potential to occur in the Santa Rita Creek.

The biotic assessment will describe the biological resources present or potentially present in Santa Rita Creek.

The biotic assessment will include a discussion of existing habitat conditions, documented occurrence of sensitive species in the maintenance areas, potential impacts, and measures to avoid, mimimize, or mitigate for adverse impacts.

The Harris Team will use resource grade-GPS and ArcGIS to map sensitive habitats adjacent to aquatic features.

All biological resources will be presented in detailed maps or mapbooks. The mapbooks will also depict potential impacts and inform protective measures as well as the development of the Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Task 5) and Conceptual and Engineering Design Plans (Task 6).

A draft of the biotic assessment will be submitted to the City for review, comment, and approval prior to submittal to the agencies.

Task 2.3 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Draft and Final Biotic Assessment for Santa Rita Creek. • Map/s of Biological Resources (sensitive habitats, plants, wildlife species, and wildlife movement). • This scope assumes that there will be one round of review of the Draft Biotic Assessment, the City will provide one set of consolidated comments, and the comments will not require major changes to the document.

Task 2.4 – Cultural and Historical Resources Report
Maintenance activities that fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE (and are subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) also must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Native American tribes.

The Harris Team will identify and map the Project Area [Area(s) of Potential Effect (APE)], on which direct ground disturbance may occur. The APE boundaries will define the limits of cultural resources studies including 6 background research, an updated records search, tribal outreach, and field survey. Albion Environmental will assess whether any cultural and historic built resources are located directly in or adjacent to the areas of proposed ground disturbance.

Albion’s background research will include conducting a cultural and historic resources records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), requesting information related to Native American resources from the Native American Heritage Commission, and any Native American contacts that are identified by the Commission, reviewing historical maps and documents, and conducting a desktop geoarchaeological review of local soil conditions for evidence of potential buried cultural resources. When possible, the results of these efforts will be used to help guide ground disturbing activities that may impact known cultural resources or refine proposed work in areas that have been identified as sensitive for supporting cultural resources.

A pedestrian field survey will be conducted to identify previously undocumented archaeological and historic built resources visible on the ground surface. The archaeologist will carefully inspect the ground surface to identify artifacts, features, and infrastructure, and assess the local geomorphic context. If resources are identified, the survey team would document them for future study.

The results of Albion’s study will be compiled into a technical report to be used for regulatory compliance. The report will contain an abstract, introduction, natural and cultural context, results of background research, results of Tribal outreach, field methods, survey results, summary and discussion of cultural resource sensitivity for the APE, and if needed, recommendations for additional work needed to complete requirements under NHPA regulations. The report will also include completed site records for any sites or isolates identified during survey.

Task 2.4 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Draft and Final Cultural Resources Report
• Outreach letters to Native American stakeholders
Task 3. CEQA Compliance/Documentation
In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Harris will prepare the appropriate CEQA documentation for the Plan. We will first explore the use of an exemption from CEQA. If the plan does not meet the requirements for an exemption, an initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) would likely be required.

Task 3.1 – CEQA Exemption
The Harris team in coordination with the City will explore the use of the following exemptions.

Categorical Exemption – Minor Alterations to Land (CEQA Guidelines 15304). Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include but are not limited to:
• Maintenance dredging where the spoil is deposited in a spoil area authorized by all applicable state and local regulatory agencies (g).

Task 3.1 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Draft and Final Notice of Exemption with Supporting Documentation • For the purposes of this scope of work and cost estimate, it is assumed that an exemption applies.

However, the appropriate CEQA documentation will be determined once the detailed Project Description is complete.

Task 4. Regulatory Compliance/Permitting
This regulatory compliance/permitting task includes on-going consultation with the agencies, the preparation of permit application packages, and additional agency coordination/consultation to finalize permit requirements.

For one-time sediment removal, EcoSystems will utilize the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling conducted by Waterways (Task 2.2) to identify impacts associated with construction activities (sediment removal, construction of an alternate flow channel, and bank slope stabilization and reconstruction) to restore flood capacity in each creek. We will also calculate on-going impacts associated with new proposed maintenance regimes.

Task 4.1 –Agency Consultation
The Harris Team will coordinate with the agencies in advance to facilitate permit approval for the actions proposed in the project such that the City will comply with the federal Clean Water Act, federal and state Endangered Species Acts, National Historic Preservation Act, and Fish and Game Codes.

Once the permit applications and reports are submitted to the agencies [USACE (USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, SHPO), Regional Board, and CDFW] (Task 4.2 below), there is typically additional agency coordination and information required to finalize and obtain the permits.

As a result of studies conducted in 2020, Harris and EcoSystems West have had several communications with the resources agencies regarding the proposed project and agency requirements for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation.

The Harris Team will continue to coordinate with the agencies regarding mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive management requirements to offset impacts from implementation of the Project. The Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Task 5.2) would be developed in conjunction with the regulatory agencies.

Task 4.1 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• After permit application submittal, Harris will provide regular email updates to the City. • This scope assumes that the agencies will not require major changes to the permit packages, other than the refinement of the Conceptual Mitigation Plan. In the event that additional coordination is determined to be necessary (e.g. if it is determined that a more developed Habitat Mitigation and Management Plan is required by the agencies), a scope and budget augment would be requested.

Task 4.2 Permit Packages
Impacts to natural resources associated with Project implementation (including impacts that occur within the 100-year flood elevation to riparian habitats, wetlands, and other biological resources) require regulatory compliance with CWA Section 404 (USACE), CWA Section 401 (Regional Board), and California Fish and Game Codes (CDFW).

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
This task includes preparation of the relevant USACE permit application form with a detailed description of the Project and permanent and temporary impacts to waters of the U.S. The figures for this report will be prepared using Engineering Design Plans for flood control actions. The Aquatic Resources Delineation (Task 2.1) will illustrate the type and extent of aquatic resources, including creeks and wetlands, within the Project Areas. The Harris Team will depict impacts to aquatic resources by overlaying Engineering Design Plans onto the aquatic resources shape files using ArcGIS.

The permit package will include the Aquatic Resources Delineation report (prepared in Task 2.1), the Biotic Assessment (prepared in Task 2.3), and the Cultural and Historical Resources report (prepared in Task 2.4). A 8 draft application package will be submitted to the City for review, comment, and approval prior to submittal to the USACE.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
If adverse effects to federally-listed species or critical habitat may occur, the USACE would initiate consultation with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the FESA. Our qualified biologists will prepare sufficient documentation, with a thorough review of federally-listed species and/or habitats present at or near the Project Areas, for submittal to the USACE for formal consultation with USFWS.

Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board)
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) must be obtained from the Regional Board for impacts to wetlands, waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the state. Therefore, this task includes preparing an application for WQC/WDR, as appropriate, for submittal to the Regional Board that would be based, in large part, on the information developed for the USACE permit application.

The application package will include a cover letter, description of existing conditions, discussion of impacts to aquatic features (including riparian habitat), description of avoidance and minimization measures, and a completed application form. The application package will also include demonstration of CEQA compliance (Task 3) and analysis of impacts to biological resources (Task 2.3). A draft of the WQC application package would be submitted to the City for review, comment, and approval prior to submittal to the Regional Board. A permit processing/filing fee will be required from the City at the time of application submittal. The fee amount will be based on the extent of temporary and permanent impacts.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
The CDFW has jurisdiction over creeks below the break-in-bank and/or associated riparian habitat that may be impacted by project activities. As such, this task includes preparing an application for a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) pursuant to Section 1602 of CFGC. The application would include a cover letter, standard notification form, CEQA compliance (Task 3), and other necessary attachments (wetland delineation, figures, plans, biological assessment (Task 2.3). A draft of the LSAA application package will be submitted to the City for review, comment, and approval prior to submittal to CDFW. An application filing/processing fee will be required from the City at the time of application submittal. The fee amount is based on the cost of the proposed work in CDFW’s jurisdiction.

Task 4.2 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Permitting packages for USACE (and USFWS), Regional Board, and CDFW regulatory compliance. • This scope assumes that, for each permitting package, there will be one round of review, the City will provide one set of consolidated comments, and the comments will not require major changes to the permitting package.
• All permit fees are included in this scope of work (Task 8). • This task includes 4 sites visits with agency personnel. 9 Task 5. Santa Rita Creek Maintenance and Conceptual Mitigation Plan The Harris Team will work with the City to develop a plan for future maintenance activities necessary to retain flood control within Natividad Creek and Gabilan Creek (a component of the Project). In addition, we will draft a conceptual plan to mitigate for impacts associated with all aspects of the Project, including proposed flood control actions and future maintenance activities.

Task 5.1 Santa Rita Creek Maintenance Plan
Future maintenance activities will likely be required to retain flood capacity within Santa Rita Creek to protect public safety. The Maintenance Plan will include a descriptive overview of the activities required to maintain these features, ideally at discrete accessible locations designed to capture sediments. These activities would be subject to approval by the relevant regulatory agencies including USACE, CDFW, and the Regional Board. The overall goal of the Project is to reduce the need and increase the interval for on-going maintenance. The Harris Team will work with the City to develop a feasible future maintenance plan.

Task 5.2 Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Implementation of the Project (flood control actions, one-time sediment removal and on-going maintenance activities) will require a Conceptual Mitigation Plan to compensate for impacts to aquatic resources and adjacent riparian habitats.

Substantial comprehensive work has been done over a period of many years to describe and analyze regional, County-wide, and City-wide aquatic resources, stormwater, pollution, and sediment loads in the City and Monterey County, and in the Salinas River watershed. Our goal is to avoid duplication of efforts, to draw upon the resources developed to date, and take advantage of existing programs that could improve efficiency and reduce costs. To that end, the Conceptual Mitigation Plan includes the following components:

A) Flood Control Actions Conceptual Designs and Engineering Design Plans (Task 6); and B) Habitat Restoration/Enhancement opportunities within the City limits.

To this end, the Conceptual Mitigation Plan would include the following sections:
• Project Description (Task 1), including existing flood management/sediment control; bank stabilization; erosion control; and future proposed maintenance actions required to maintain flood control. • Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling.
• Ecological enhancement opportunities within City creeks and wetlands. • Reduce pollution in City creeks using natural vegetative treatment filtration systems such as bioswales positioned at key locations.
• Enhance ecological functions and values of aquatic and riparian habitat in creek corridors and wetlands through invasive species removal, and native plant restoration compatible with flood management objectives (i.e., this would not include planting willows in flood corridors). • Improve in-stream and near-stream infiltration/percolation of surface flows into the aquifer through design where possible.
• Manage open spaces adjacent to creeks and wetlands to improve the community benefits of the creeks and riparian corridors, and to deter unregulated encampments and the associated potential impacts on public safety (including fire prevention), water quality, and on the ecological integrity of the City’s creeks and wetlands.
10 Task 5 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Up to three (3) meetings with City personnel to discuss Maintenance Plan and Mitigation Plan goals • The Harris Team will attend meetings partners to further coordinate and develop agreements to avoid, prevent, minimize, and mitigate for potential impacts associated with the Project (Task 1) • Draft and Final Maintenance Plan (electronic format)
• Draft and Final Conceptual Mitigation Plan (electronic format) • This scope assumes that meetings with partners will not exceed six (6) total hours. In the event that additional coordination is determined to be necessary, a scope and budget augment would be requested.
• This scope assumes that there will be one (1) round of review, the City will provide one set of consolidated comments, and the comments will not require major changes to the program.

Task 6. Conceptual and Engineering Design Plans
Based on the Feasibility Study conducted during 2023 and finalized in January 2024, Waterways will prepare plans and specifications detailing proposed sediment and vegetation management actions, ideally so that maintenance (sediment and vegetation removal) would occur in discrete locations to improve maintenance efficiency, reduce maintenance costs, and reduce on-going impacts to the City’s creeks. These plans will be developed in communication with the City to meet the City’s needs for on-going flood control, management, and maintenance.

Waterways will prepare conceptual designs, and 65% and 100% engineering design plans.

Task 6 Deliverables and Assumptions:
• Up to three (3) meetings with City personnel to discuss proposed features and designs • Conceptual Plans (electronic format)
• 65% and 100% Engineering Design Plans and Technical Specifications • This scope assumes that there will be two (2) rounds of review for conceptual plans and two (2) rounds of review for engineering design plans.

Task 7. CCWG Ryder Ranch Mitigation Bank Evaluation
To support the City’s pursuit of Ryder Ranch as a mitigation site, Central Coast Wetlands Group (CCWG) will evaluate the site and develop the mitigation project as follows.

Task 7.1 Site Evaluation
• Participate in meetings and conduct preliminary field visit • Conduct site evaluations to define restoration project opportunities and constraints • Complete land appraisal process as needed for grant funding • Iteratively present concept projects to identify opportunities and define constraints Task 7.2 Project Development
• Develop cost estimates for full project design, construction, operations and maintenance, and an implementation timeline for each project
• Work with landowner to fully develop the acquisition agreement and project goals Cost Estimate
The cost estimate to conduct the work described above is $332,325.00 (Attachment A).

Attachments
A. Cost Estimate
Task 8. Permit Fees
The following permit fees are estimates (based on impact acreages and project construction costs), and the final fee amounts will be determined by the regulatory agencies.

8.1 Lower Gabilan Permit Fees - $10,000

8.2 Upper Gabilan Permit Fees - $10,000

8.3 Upper Natividad Permit Fees - $20,000

8.4 Santa Rita Permit Fees - $20,000
11 Attachment A. Santa Rita Creek Flood Control Project* and Ryder Ranch Mitigation Bank Evaluation Mitigation
$285.00 $160.00 $155.00 $160.00 $190.00 $170.00 $170.00 $140.00 $200.00 $150.00 $140.00 $220.00 Appraisal Cost Mileage Permit Fees Mileage Task 1: Project Management and Detailed Project Description (Phase 01)

1.1 Project Management and Coordination 40.0 24.0 40.0 20.0 8.0 $ 27,960.00

1.2 Meetings with City Staff (Bi-Weekly Dec 2024 - Dec 2025) 24.0 12.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 $ 22,080.00

1.3 Draft and Final Detailed Project Description 24.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 24.0 10.0 $ 14,550.00 Hours Subtotal 88 0 2 4 36 28 88 0 54 8 0 0
Task 1 Subtotal $25,080.00 $0.00 $310.00 $640.00 $6,840.00 $4,760.00 $14,960.00 $0.00 $10,800.00 $1,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $64,590.00 Task 2: Technical Studies (Phase 02)

2.1 Assessment of Aquatic Resources (Jurisdictional Delineation) 8.0 2.0 56.0 4.0 8.0 4.0 $ 108.00 $ 14,168.00

2.2 Recommended Project Actions and Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling 24.0 24.0 40.0 20.0 $ 18,400.00

2.3 Biotic Assessment 4.0 20.0 16.0 2.0 40.0 40.0 28.0 $ 216.00 $ 25,016.00

2.4 Cultural and Historical Resources Report 4.0 $ 12,000.00 $ 13,140.00 Hours Subtotal 8.0 20 0 24 4 96 44 28 32.0 28 40 20
Task 2 Subtotal $2,280.00 $3,200.00 $0.00 $3,840.00 $760.00 $16,320.00 $7,480.00 $3,920.00 $6,400.00 $4,200.00 $5,600.00 $4,400.00 $ - $ 12,000.00 $ - $ 324.00 $ - $ - $70,724.00 Task 3: CEQA Compliance/Documentation (Phase 03)

3.1 CEQA Exemption 8.0 16.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 $ 5,995.00
Hours Subtotal 8.0 16 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
Task 3 Subtotal $2,280.00 $2,560.00 $155.00 $320.00 $0.00 $340.00 $340.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $5,995.00 Task 4: Regulatory Compliance/Permitting (Phase 04)

4.1 Agency Consultation 4.0 12.0 24.0 8.0 12.0 $ - $ - $ 10,280.00

4.2 Permit Packages 8.0 4.0 32.0 96.0 40.0 $ 200.00 $ 29,600.00 Hours Subtotal 0.0 0 0 8 8 44 120 40 8 12 0 0
Task 4 Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,280.00 $1,520.00 $7,480.00 $20,400.00 $5,600.00 $1,600.00 $1,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 200.00 $ - $ - $39,880.00 Task 5: Santa Rita Creek Maintenance and Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Phase 05)

5.1 Santa Rita Creek Maintenance Plan 4.0 4.0 4.0 14.0 12.0 $ 7,100.00

5.2 Conceptual Mitigation Plan 4.0 12.0 4.0 12.0 40.0 16.0 $ 14,900.00 Hours Subtotal 8.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 4.0 16.0 44.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 Task 5 Subtotal $2,280.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,920.00 $760.00 $2,720.00 $7,480.00 $2,240.00 $2,800.00 $1,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $22,000.00 Task 6: Conceptual and Engineering Design Plans (Phase 06)

6.1 Conceptual Design Plans 2.0 2.0 1.0 24.0 50.0 $ 108.00 $ 13,228.00

6.2 Engineering Design Plans 4.0 4.0 1.0 60.0 100.0 $ 216.00 $ 28,716.00 Hours Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 84.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 Task 6 Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,020.00 $1,020.00 $280.00 $16,800.00 $22,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 324.00 $41,944.00 Task 7: Central Coast Wetlands Group Support (Phase 07)

7.1 Site Evaluation
Participate in Meeetings and Conduct Preliminary Field Visit $ 1,820.00 $ 1,820.00 Conduct site evaluations to define restoration project opportunities & constraints $ 780.00 $ 780.00 Complete land appraisal process as needed by City for grant funding $ 780.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,780.00 Iteratively present concept projects to identify opportunities and define constraints $ 4,160.00 $ 4,160.00

7.2 Project Development $ -
Develop cost estimates for full project design, construction, operations and $ 2,080.00 $ 2,080.00 maintenance, and an implementation timeline for each project $ - Work with landowner to fully develop the acquisition agreement and project goals $ 2,080.00 $ 2,080.00 Hours Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Task 7 Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ 11,700.00 $ - $ 5,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $16,700.00 Task 8: Permit Fees* (Phase 08)

8.1 Lower Gabilan Permit Fees $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00

8.2 Upper Gabilan Permit Fees $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00

8.3 Upper Natividad Permit Fees $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

8.4 Santa Rita Permit Fees $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
Hours Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Task 8 Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 60,000.00 $ - $60,000.00 SUBTOTAL TASKS 1-8 $31,920.00 $5,760.00 $465.00 $8,000.00 $9,880.00 $32,640.00 $51,680.00 $12,040.00 $38,400.00 $31,500.00 $5,600.00 $4,400.00 $11,700.00 $12,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 524.00 $ - $ 324.00 $321,833.00 Subconsultant Markup (5%) $494 $1,632 $2,584 $602 $1,920 $1,575 $280 $220 $585 $600 $10,492 TOTAL $332,325.00
Central Coast
Wetlands
Group
Albion Waterways
Craig Stewart
Engineer
2-Person Survey
Crew
EcoSystem
s West
Central Coast
Wetlands
Group
EcoSystem
s West Harris & Associates EcoSystems West
Biologist/Planner Kate Elliott
Project Director
Erin McGinty
Sr Wildlife Biologist/
Project Manager
Bioloigst Justin Davilla Senior
Ecologist
William Davilla
Principal
Randy Deodat
GIS Specialist

DIRECT COSTS
Cultural Resources
Task Description
Fee Matt Weld
Principal Engineer

STAFF HOURS
Waterways
Lovrin Hydrologist Lindsey Messner
Tech Editor
7/25/2024
*This scope includes not only getting the permits, but taking this to a shovel ready project (description, parameters, etc for DPW to implement). **The permit fees are estimates and will be determined by the regulatory agencies.

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-436, Version: 1
Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements, CIP No. 9010 Approve a Resolution approving the plans and specifications for the Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements, CIP No. 9010; accepting the withdrawal of bid from the apparent low bidder, Mountain Cascade, Inc.; approving award of contract to the second low bidder, Sierra Construction & Excavation, Inc. in the amount of $3,352,170 (Base Bid plus Additive Bid Items B, C, D, E, F); approving the transfer of ARPA funds from 8192 Stormwater Green Infrastructure in the amount of $230,678, 9086 Natividad Creek Silt in the amount of $62,000, and 9727 Gabilan Creek Silt in the amount of $61,861; and approving a 20% project contingency in the amount of $670,435.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PE, LS, DIRECTOR
BY: JOSIE LANTACA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: SANITARY SEWER SPOT REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENTS
CIP NO. 9010
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to:
1) Approve the plans and specifications for the Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements, CIP No. 9010;
2) Accept the withdrawal of bid from the apparent low bidder, Mountain Cascade, Inc.; 3) Approve award of contract to the second low bidder, Sierra Construction & Excavation, Inc. for the Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements; CIP No. 9010 in the amount of $3,352,170 (Base Bid plus Additive Bid Items B, C, D, E, F); 4) Approve the transfer of ARPA funds from 8192 Stormwater Green Infrastructure in the amount of $230,678, 9086 Natividad Creek Silt in the amount of $62,000, and 9727 Gabilan Creek Silt in the amount of $61,8611; and
5) Approve a 20% project contingency and soft costs in the amount of $670,435.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements, CIP No. 9010 is one of the projects identified as part of the “Investments in Water and Sewer” funded with the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The project was advertised for bidding on July 3, 2024, and bids were opened on July 30, 2024. The apparent low bidder, Mountain Cascade, Inc., requested that it be allowed to withdraw its bid due to clerical errors made in entering the final pricing. The bid from Sierra Construction & Excavation, Inc., the second low bidder, exceeds the Engineer’s estimate and additional funds will need to be allocated to award the project.

BACKGROUND:

1 Transfer amounts could be lower due to ongoing transactions.

Page | 2
The Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements, CIP No. 9010 is one of the projects identified as part of the “Investments in Water and Sewer” funded with the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The repair locations included in the Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements project are based on the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update (SSMP) approved by City Council on May 2, 2023 (Resolution No. 22648). The list is a result of findings from closed circuit television (CCTV) pipeline video inspections, and maintenance staff’s areas of concern. Staff prioritized the CIP list according to the pipe and facility conditions. The extent of repairs was surveyed, and the design was provided by Wallace Group. Plans and specifications were reviewed and approved by the City Engineer on July 3, 2024. Table 1 provides the CIP number and locations included in the Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements Project.

Table 1. Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements Project CIP No Street Name/Location/Description
Base Bid:

CIP 7 Davis Rd/Market St Overpass Bunker Repair
CIP 13 Riker Street Sewer Main Repair
CIP 14B Villa Street Sewer Main Repair
CIP 14C Capitol Street Sewer Main Repair
CIP 17 Donner Way Sewer Main Repair
CIP 18 San Miguel Avenue Sewer Main Repair
Additive Bid Item B:

CIP 12A Del Monte Avenue Sewer Main Repair
Additive Bid Item C:

CIP 16 Highway 101/N. Main Street Overpass Bunker Repair Additive Bid Item D: Concrete Pavement Replacement
Additive Bid Item E: Hot Mix Asphalt
Additive Bid Item F: Class 2 Aggregate Base
The scope of work includes traffic control, removal or abandonment of existing sanitary sewer mains, installation of sanitary sewer mains, removal, replacement and/or installation of sanitary sewer manholes, reconnecting of existing sanitary sewer laterals to new sanitary sewer mains, sewer bypassing, replacement of vault doors, and trench restorations as specified on the project plans and specifications.

On July 3, 2024, the project was advertised for bidding, and bids were opened on July 30, 2024, with the following results (see attached Bid Tabulation Sheet for details):

Contractor
Total Bid
(Base Bid plus all
Additive Bid Items)
Mountain Cascade, Inc. (Livermore, CA) $2,678,960.00
Sierra Construction & Excavation, Inc. (Bakersfield, CA) $3,744,516.00 Pacific Underground Construction, Inc. (San Jose, CA) $4,089,950.00 Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA) $4,245,650.00 Monterey Peninsula Engineering (Marina, CA) $4,660,800.00 Engineer’s Estimate $3,271,800.00
Page | 3
Monterey Peninsula Engineering’s (MPE) bid was inadvertently left out in the reading of the bids during the public meeting held virtually via Zoom, at bid opening. However, MPEs bid is valid, and thus included in the bid tabulation.

On August 6, 2024, a “Withdrawal of Bid” request letter was received from Mountain Cascade, Inc. (MCI). MCI is requesting that it be allowed to withdraw its bid due to clerical errors made when entering the final pricing, which made MCI’s bid materially different than what it intended to submit. The error occurred when MCI mistakenly omitted entering manhole lining subcontractor pricing, related to support costs, and subcontractor listing in its final bid. The clerical error resulted in the bid total excluding $575,797.20 in costs, or 21.5% less than MCI intended. Staff recommends that the withdrawal of bid request from MCI be accepted.

Sierra Construction & Excavation, Inc. (SCEI) is the second low bidder. SCEI’s bid is 14.45% above the engineer’s estimate but is deemed reasonable. Staff has conducted reference check on SCEI from the North of River Sanitary District (NORSD) (Bakersfield), and NORSD has very positive review regarding SCEI on their work performance on five similar jobs over the course of six to seven years.

To allow award to move forward with the limited budget, staff recommends award of Base Bid plus Additive Bid Items B, C, D, E, F to Sierra Construction & Excavation, Inc., the second apparent low bidder, in the amount of $3,352,170.00. Staff is recommending exclusion of Additive Bid Item A, Mae Avenue based on limited available funding. The improvement plans for the sewer repairs for Mae Avenue will be held and implemented when a future sewer project is funded.

The “Local Purchasing Preference Ordinance” is not applicable to this project because the project is funded with ARPA funds.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

This project has been reviewed per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and has been determined to be Categorically Exempt in accordance with Section 15301 (Class 1) because the project involves the maintenance of existing public facilities/utilities with no expansion of use.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The project addresses the City Council’s Strategic Goals of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability and Economic Development.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The process of administering this project involves Public Works, Finance, and Legal Departments.

Public Works Department coordinated the preparation of the project plans, specifications, and estimates, administered the bidding process, and will manage and inspect the project during construction. Finance Department manages the proper disbursement of funds, and Legal Department reviews pertinent documents/contracts.

Page | 4
FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no impact to the General Fund for this project. The Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements project is one of the identified projects listed as part of the “Investments in Water and Sewer” funded with the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The 8190 Water and Sewer Work has a total budget allocation of $4,620,000 in ARPA funds. Based on expenditures as of July 3, 2024, the remaining balance is $3,812,717 from the 8190 Water and Sewer Work fund. The estimated construction cost for this project including contingencies, soft costs, and admin overhead is $4,072,605.00 as outlined below.

Construction Cost $3,352,170
Contingencies (15%) 502,826
Soft Costs (5%) 167,609
Administrative Overhead 50,000
Total Estimated Project Costs $4,072,605
A transfer of ARPA funds is recommended to proceed with project award and to close the funding gap for construction.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Location Map
Bid Tabulations
Mountain Cascade Withdrawal Letter

Page 1 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS; ACCEPTING THE

WITHDRAWAL OF BID FROM THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, MOUNTAIN CASCADE, INC.; AUTHORIZING BID AWARD AND EXECUTION OF CONTRACT TO SIERRA CONSTRUCTION & EXCAVATION, INC. FOR THE SANITARY SEWER SPOT REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,352,170.00 (BASE BID PLUS ADDITIVE BID ITEMS B, C, D, E, F); APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF ARPA FUNDS FROM 8192 STORMWATER GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AMOUNT OF $230,678; 9086 NATIVIDAD CREEK SILT IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,000; AND 9727 GABILAN CREEK SILT IN THE AMOUNT OF $61,861 TO ARPA FUND 8190; AND APPROVING A 20% PROJECT CONTINGENCY AND SOFT COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $670,435
WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements is one of the identified projects listed as part of the “Investments in Water and Sewer” funded with the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 Funds (Fund Number 3911.50.8190); and WHEREAS, selection of improvements are based on the findings of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update and areas of maintenance concerns; and WHEREAS, selected locations were surveyed and designed by Wallace Group and improvement plans and specifications were approved by the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, on July 3, 2024, the Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements was advertised for bidding; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the City Clerk of Salinas on July 30, 2024, at a public meeting held virtually via Zoom, publicly opened, examined, and declared all bids received via PlanetBids, an electronic bid advertisement website for the Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements in accordance with the plans and specifications for such work on file in the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the apparent low bidder, Mountain Cascade, Inc. (MCI) requested that it be allowed to withdraw its bid due to clerical errors made when entering the final pricing, which made MCI’s bid materially different than what it intended to submit; and WHEREAS, the apparent low bidder, Mountain Cascade, Inc.’s withdrawal of bid request is hereby accepted; and
WHEREAS, the second low bidder, Sierra Construction & Excavation, Inc., submitted a bid that is 14.45% above the engineering estimate but is deemed reasonable; and WHEREAS, City staff thereupon reported the results of the bidding to the City Council at its regular meeting on August 20, 2024, and the Council in open session at said meeting examined the report of staff.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Salinas Municipal Code

Page 2 of 3 ends

Section 12-21, in reference to the Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements, that all of said bids or proposals are rejected except the bid of Sierra Construction & Excavation, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as “Successful Bidder”), being the lowest and best bid which is hereby accepted. The subject contract is hereby awarded to said Successful Bidder for the sum of $3,352,170.00 (Base Bid plus Additive Bid Items B, C, D, E, F), and more specifically at the unit prices particularly set forth and contained in the Proposal for the Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements, of said Successful Bidder previously filed in the office of the City Clerk on July 30, 2024. Said sum shall be paid by the City of Salinas to said Successful Bidder in the manner specified in the contract documents for the project filed in the office of the City Clerk, entitled “Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said project plans and specifications are hereby accepted and adopted for said work and are also referred to for all of the details and particulars thereof, and said plans and specifications are by reference incorporated in and hereby made a part of this resolution; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the transfer of ARPA funds from 8192 Stormwater Green Infrastructure in the amount of $230,678, 9086 Natividad Creek Silt in the amount of $62,000, and 9727 Gabilan Creek Silt in the amount of $61,861 to ARPA fund 8190 is hereby approved1; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby approves a 20% project contingency and soft costs in the amount of $670,435; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of Salinas is hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the City of Salinas to execute a contract consistent with the Proposal of said Successful Bidder for said work.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of August 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor

1 Transfer amounts could be lower due to ongoing transactions.

Page 3 of 3 ends

ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
/2&$7,210$3
BID TABULATION
Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements; CIP No. 9010 Item # Item Description
Unit of
Measure Quantity Unit Price Item Total Unit Price Item Total Unit Price Item Total Unit Price Item Total Unit Price Item Total Unit Price Item Total 1 Mobilization and Demobilization LS 1 $180,000.00  $180,000.00  $90,000.00  $90,000.00  $50,850.00  $50,850.00  $275,000.00  $275,000.00  $189,000.00  $189,000.00  $130,000.00  $130,000.00 2 Construction Survey LS 1 $25,000.00  $25,000.00  $10,000.00  $10,000.00  $38,855.00  $38,855.00  $30,000.00  $30,000.00  $15,000.00  $15,000.00  $20,000.00  $20,000.00 3 Storm Water Pollution Control/SWPPP LS 1 $20,000.00  $20,000.00  $2,000.00  $2,000.00  $44,365.00  $44,365.00  $30,000.00  $30,000.00  $25,000.00  $25,000.00  $40,000.00  $40,000.00 4 Sheeting, Shoring, and Bracing LS 1 $140,000.00  $140,000.00  $30,000.00  $30,000.00  $271,700.00  $271,700.00  $95,000.00  $95,000.00  $30,000.00  $30,000.00  $40,000.00  $40,000.00 5 Traffic Control LS 1 $200,000.00  $200,000.00  $50,000.00  $50,000.00  $72,628.00  $72,628.00  $75,000.00  $75,000.00  $460,000.00  $460,000.00  $130,000.00  $130,000.00 6 Concrete Pavement Removal/Disposal SF 8300 $5.00  $41,500.00  $4.00  $33,200.00  $13.00  $107,900.00  $20.00  $166,000.00  $8.00  $66,400.00  $5.00  $41,500.00 7 3' x 5' Double‐Leaf Aluminum Vault Doors EA 3 $7,000.00  $21,000.00  $6,000.00  $18,000.00  $19,841.00  $59,523.00  $40,000.00  $120,000.00  $11,800.00  $35,400.00  $20,000.00  $60,000.00 $21,000.00  $18,000.00  $59,523.00  $120,000.00  $35,400.00  $60,000.00 8 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer Main LF 20 $210.00  $4,200.00  $700.00  $14,000.00  $1,017.00  $20,340.00  $1,250.00  $25,000.00  $520.00  $10,400.00  $3,000.00  $60,000.00 9 Re‐Connect Existing Sewer Lateral to New Sewer EA 1 $3,000.00  $3,000.00  $575.00  $575.00  $9,570.00  $9,570.00  $1,200.00  $1,200.00  $1,600.00  $1,600.00  $4,000.00  $4,000.00 10 CIP 13 Sewer Bypassing LS 1 $5,000.00  $5,000.00  $1,000.00  $1,000.00  $4,518.00  $4,518.00  $1,000.00  $1,000.00  $6,000.00  $6,000.00  $10,000.00  $10,000.00 $12,200.00  $15,575.00  $34,428.00  $27,200.00  $18,000.00  $74,000.00 11 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer Main LF 610 $300.00  $183,000.00  $447.00  $272,670.00  $246.00  $150,060.00  $550.00  $335,500.00  $460.00  $280,600.00  $700.00  $427,000.00

11.1 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer Main LF 40 $230.00  $9,200.00  $447.00  $17,880.00  $313.00  $12,520.00  $525.00  $21,000.00  $440.00  $17,600.00  $650.00  $26,000.00 12 Remove and Replace Existing SS Manhole EA 2 $18,000.00  $36,000.00  $14,000.00  $28,000.00  $27,614.00  $55,228.00  $15,000.00  $30,000.00  $20,000.00  $40,000.00  $25,000.00  $50,000.00 13 Remove and Replace Existing Drop SS Manhole EA 1 $24,000.00  $24,000.00  $16,000.00  $16,000.00  $28,830.00  $28,830.00  $20,000.00  $20,000.00  $20,000.00  $20,000.00  $30,000.00  $30,000.00 14 New SS Manhole EA 2 $15,000.00  $30,000.00  $11,000.00  $22,000.00  $28,866.00  $57,732.00  $14,000.00  $28,000.00  $19,000.00  $38,000.00  $20,000.00  $40,000.00 15 Remove Existing SS Manhole EA 2 $10,000.00  $20,000.00  $2,600.00  $5,200.00  $12,754.00  $25,508.00  $5,000.00  $10,000.00  $3,000.00  $6,000.00  $15,000.00  $30,000.00 16 Abandon Existing Sewer Main and Manholes LS 1 $25,000.00  $25,000.00  $15,000.00  $15,000.00  $3,689.00  $3,689.00  $15,000.00  $15,000.00  $9,800.00  $9,800.00  $35,000.00  $35,000.00 17 Re‐connect Existing Sewer Lateral to New Sewer EA 12 $4,500.00  $54,000.00  $5,075.00  $60,900.00  $3,704.00  $44,448.00  $6,500.00  $78,000.00  $8,500.00  $102,000.00  $4,000.00  $48,000.00 18 CIP 14B Sewer Bypassing LS 1 $12,000.00  $12,000.00  $29,000.00  $29,000.00  $40,022.00  $40,022.00  $3,000.00  $3,000.00  $3,000.00  $3,000.00  $45,000.00  $45,000.00 $393,200.00  $466,650.00  $418,037.00  $540,500.00  $517,000.00  $731,000.00 19 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer Main LF 2120 $300.00  $636,000.00  $308.50  $654,020.00  $250.00  $530,000.00  $435.00  $922,200.00  $560.00  $1,187,200.00  $550.00  $1,166,000.00

19.1 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer Main LF 10 $230.00  $2,300.00  $308.50  $3,085.00  $233.00  $2,330.00  $400.00  $4,000.00  $900.00  $9,000.00  $480.00  $4,800.00 20 Remove and Replace Existing SS Manhole EA 7 $18,000.00  $126,000.00  $14,000.00  $98,000.00  $27,029.00  $189,203.00  $15,000.00  $105,000.00  $22,500.00  $157,500.00  $30,000.00  $210,000.00 21 Remove Existing FI and Replace with New SS Manhole EA 1 $18,000.00  $18,000.00  $13,000.00  $13,000.00  $28,433.00  $28,433.00  $13,000.00  $13,000.00  $19,000.00  $19,000.00  $25,000.00  $25,000.00 22 Re‐Connect Existing Sewer Lateral in New Sewer EA 29 $3,000.00  $87,000.00  $3,200.00  $92,800.00  $3,108.00  $90,132.00  $1,250.00  $36,250.00  $1,600.00  $46,400.00  $4,000.00  $116,000.00 23 CIP 14C Sewer Bypassing LS 1 $80,000.00  $80,000.00  $44,000.00  $44,000.00  $211,742.00  $211,742.00  $8,000.00  $8,000.00  $120,000.00  $120,000.00  $45,000.00  $45,000.00 $949,300.00  $904,905.00  $1,051,840.00  $1,088,450.00  $1,539,100.00  $1,566,800.00 24 10" PVC Sanitary Sewer Main LF 250 $250.00  $62,500.00  $556.00  $139,000.00  $239.00  $59,750.00  $650.00  $162,500.00  $405.00  $101,250.00  $775.00  $193,750.00 25 Remove and Replace Existing Drop SS Manhole EA 2 $25,000.00  $50,000.00  $18,000.00  $36,000.00  $27,614.00  $55,228.00  $25,000.00  $50,000.00  $15,000.00  $30,000.00  $25,000.00  $50,000.00 26 Re‐Connect Existing Sewer Lateral to New Sewer EA 5 $3,000.00  $15,000.00  $3,000.00  $15,000.00  $10,514.00  $52,570.00  $1,500.00  $7,500.00  $1,600.00  $8,000.00  $4,000.00  $20,000.00 27 CIP 17 Sewer Bypassing LS 1 $10,000.00  $10,000.00  $1,000.00  $1,000.00  $37,527.00  $37,527.00  $1,500.00  $1,500.00  $25,000.00  $25,000.00  $10,000.00  $10,000.00 $137,500.00  $191,000.00  $205,075.00  $221,500.00  $164,250.00  $273,750.00 28 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer Main LF 20 $200.00  $4,000.00  $520.00  $10,400.00  $1,018.00  $20,360.00  $1,200.00  $24,000.00  $800.00  $16,000.00  $3,000.00  $60,000.00 29 Remove and Replace Existing SS Manhole EA 1 $18,000.00  $18,000.00  $13,500.00  $13,500.00  $28,432.00  $28,432.00  $17,000.00  $17,000.00  $20,000.00  $20,000.00  $30,000.00  $30,000.00 30 CIP 18 Sewer Bypassing LS 1 $5,000.00  $5,000.00  $590.00  $590.00  $40,668.00  $40,668.00  $1,000.00  $1,000.00  $6,000.00  $6,000.00  $10,000.00  $10,000.00 $27,000.00  $24,490.00  $89,460.00  $42,000.00  $42,000.00  $100,000.00 $2,146,700.00  $1,835,820.00  $2,444,661.00  $2,710,650.00  $3,101,150.00  $3,207,050.00 Sierra Construction & Excavation,
Inc.
10417 Meacham Road
Bakersfield, CA 93312
661‐588‐5124 408‐977‐1655
Anderson Pacific Engineering
Construction, Inc.
1370 Norman AvenueSanta Clara, CA 95054
408‐970‐9900
Mountain Cascade, Inc.
555 Exchange Court
Livermore, CA 94550
925‐373‐8370
Bid awarded on __________ by Salinas City Council by Resolution No.____________ (NCS) to ____________ for the sum of $_____________ for Base Bid plus all Additive Bid Items. All other bids were rejected and bid bonds returned.Dated this ___ day of__________________, 2024._____________________________________________City Clerk Bid Opening: 07/30/2024 @ 2:00 PM, ElectronicProject Coordinator: Josie Lantaca  Monterey Peninsula Engineering Marina, CA 93933
831‐384‐4081
192 Healy Avenue
PROPOSAL ITEMS:

Engineer's Estimate
Pacific Underground
Construction, Inc.
1817 Stone Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
CIP 7 ‐ DAVIS RD/MARKET ST OVERPASS BUNKER REPAIR
CIP 13 ‐ RIKER ST SEWER MAIN REPAIR
CIP 14B ‐ VILLA ST SEWER MAIN REPAIR
CIP 14C ‐ CAPITOL ST SEWER MAIN REPAIR
CIP 7 SUB TOTAL
CIP 13 SUB TOTAL
CIP 14B SUB TOTAL
CIP 14C SUB TOTAL
CIP 17 SUB TOTALCIP 18 SUB TOTAL
TOTAL BASE BID (For Comparison Only)
CIP 17 ‐ DONNER WAY SEWER MAIN REPAIR $0.00
CIP 18 ‐ SAN MIGUEL AVE SEWER MAIN REPAIR
1 of 2 J:\p\9010 SS Spot Repair Project\Bidding  Phase and Bid Opening Docs\9010 Spot Repair Bid TabFinal BID TABULATION
Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements; CIP No. 9010 Sierra Construction & Excavation,
Inc.
10417 Meacham Road
Bakersfield, CA 93312
661‐588‐5124 408‐977‐1655
Anderson Pacific Engineering
Construction, Inc.
1370 Norman AvenueSanta Clara, CA 95054
408‐970‐9900
Mountain Cascade, Inc.
555 Exchange Court
Livermore, CA 94550
925‐373‐8370
Bid Opening: 07/30/2024 @ 2:00 PM, ElectronicProject Coordinator: Josie Lantaca  Monterey Peninsula Engineering Marina, CA 93933
831‐384‐4081
192 Healy Avenue
Engineer's Estimate
Pacific Underground
Construction, Inc.
1817 Stone Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125
A1 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer Main LF 820 $210.00  $172,200.00  $250.00  $205,000.00  $260.00  $213,200.00  $475.00  $389,500.00  $350.00  $287,000.00  $500.00  $410,000.00 A2 Remove and Replace Existing SS Manhole EA 2 $18,000.00  $36,000.00  $13,000.00  $26,000.00  $27,614.00  $55,228.00  $12,000.00  $24,000.00  $21,000.00  $42,000.00  $25,000.00  $50,000.00 A3 Re‐connect Existing Sewer Lateral to New Sewer EA 19 $3,000.00  $57,000.00  $2,400.00  $45,600.00  $2,366.00  $44,954.00  $1,200.00  $22,800.00  $1,600.00  $30,400.00  $4,000.00  $76,000.00 A4 CIP 12B Sewer Bypassing LS 1 $20,000.00  $20,000.00  $5,000.00  $5,000.00  $78,964.00  $78,964.00  $2,000.00  $2,000.00  $3,000.00  $3,000.00  $10,000.00  $10,000.00 $285,200.00  $281,600.00  $392,346.00  $438,300.00  $362,400.00  $546,000.00 B1 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer Main LF 840 $275.00  $231,000.00  $320.00  $268,800.00  $266.00  $223,440.00  $400.00  $336,000.00  $395.00  $331,800.00  $550.00  $462,000.00 B2 Remove and Replace Existing SS Manhole EA 4 $22,000.00  $88,000.00  $13,000.00  $52,000.00  $27,205.00  $108,820.00  $12,000.00  $48,000.00  $21,000.00  $84,000.00  $25,000.00  $100,000.00 B3 Re‐connect Existing Sewer Lateral to New Sewer EA 15 $3,000.00  $45,000.00  $3,200.00  $48,000.00  $2,131.00  $31,965.00  $1,200.00  $18,000.00  $1,600.00  $24,000.00  $4,000.00  $60,000.00 B4 CIP 12A Sewer Bypassing LS 1 $20,000.00  $20,000.00  $5,000.00  $5,000.00  $75,466.00  $75,466.00  $2,000.00  $2,000.00  $40,000.00  $40,000.00  $10,000.00  $10,000.00 $384,000.00  $373,800.00  $439,691.00  $404,000.00  $479,800.00  $632,000.00 ADDITIVE BID ITEM C ‐ CIP 16 ‐ HIGHWAY 101/N. MAIN ST OVERPASS BUNKER REPAIR C1 15" PVC Sanitary Sewer Main LF 20 $320.00  $6,400.00  $662.00  $13,240.00  $1,920.00  $38,400.00  $3,500.00  $70,000.00  $1,600.00  $32,000.00  $3,000.00  $60,000.00 C2 CIP 16 Sewer Bypassing LS 1 $80,000.00  $80,000.00  $1,000.00  $1,000.00  $52,418.00  $52,418.00  $45,000.00  $45,000.00  $3,000.00  $3,000.00  $4,000.00  $4,000.00 $86,400.00  $14,240.00  $90,818.00  $115,000.00  $35,000.00  $64,000.00 D1 Concrete Pavement Replacement SF 8300 $40.00  $332,000.00  $12.00  $99,600.00  $22.00  $182,600.00  $40.00  $332,000.00  $21.00  $174,300.00  $17.50  $145,250.00 E1 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 100 $225.00  $22,500.00  $560.00  $56,000.00  $1,482.00  $148,200.00  $500.00  $50,000.00  $450.00  $45,000.00  $465.00  $46,500.00 F1 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 100 $150.00  $15,000.00  $179.00  $17,900.00  $462.00  $46,200.00  $400.00  $40,000.00  $480.00  $48,000.00  $200.00  $20,000.00 $3,271,800.00  $2,678,960.00  $3,744,516.00  $4,089,950.00  $4,245,650.00  $4,660,800.00

7.   Equal Employment Opportunity Certification13. Debarment and Suspension Certification

YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES

YES YES

12. Non‐Collusion Affidavit YES YES YES14. Non‐Lobbying Certification for Federal‐Aid Contracts YES YES YES10. Public Contract Code Section 10232 Statement YES YES YES YESYES

11. Contractor’s Certification of Non‐Segregated FacilitiesITEMS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PROPOSAL ON BID OPENING DATE:5.   Insurance Certification YES YES YES

YESYESYES

YESYESYES

2.   Addendum 1 YES YES YES

4.   Bidder’s Statement of Financial Responsibility Technical Ability and Experience YES

3.   Bidder's Bond  YES

YES YES YESYES
YES

6.   Bidder’s Statement of Subcontractors – Part 1 YES YES YES

YES YES
YES
YES

15. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities YES8.   Public Contract Code Section 10285.1 Statement YES YES YES9.   Public Contract Code Section 10162 Questionnaire YES

YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES

1.   Fully Completed & Signed Proposal Form YES
TOTAL BID (BASE BID PLUS ALL ADDITIVE BID ITEMS)

YES YES YES YES
YESYES
ADDITIVE BID ITEM B ‐ CIP 12A ‐ DEL MONTE AVE SEWER MAIN REPAIR ADDITIVE BID ITEM D ‐ CONCRETE PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT
ADDITIVE BID ITEM E ‐ HOT MIX ASPHALT
ADDITIVE BID ITEM F ‐ CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE
ADDITIVE BID ITEM C ‐ CIP 16 SUB TOTAL
ADDITIVE BID ITEM A ‐ CIP 12B SUB TOTALADDITIVE BID ITEM B ‐ CIP 12A SUB TOTAL ADDITIVE BID ITEM A ‐ CIP 12B ‐ MAE AVE SEWER MAIN REPAIR ADDITIVE BID ITEMS
2 of 2 J:\p\9010 SS Spot Repair Project\Bidding  Phase and Bid Opening Docs\9010 Spot Repair Bid TabFinal

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-441, Version: 1
Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP No. 9720
Approve a Resolution accepting the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project CIP 9720, with JJR Construction Inc., for maintenance and responsibility.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, P.E., L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: VICTOR SANCHEZ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
ADRIANA ROBLES, P.E., C.F.M., CITY ENGINEER
TITLE: CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, CIP NO. 9720
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution accepting the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project CIP 9720, with JJR Construction Inc., for maintenance and responsibility.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On January 10, 2023, City Council awarded the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP 9720 to JJR Construction Inc. via Resolution No. 22559 for a contracted amount of $3,761,531.32 and authorized additional work in the amount of $750,000. Construction began on March 20, 2023 with an allowance of 120 working days for project completion. JJR Construction has completed sidewalk repair for 33 street segments under this contract for a total amount, including 10 contract change orders, of $4,792,048.64. Substantial completion was issued on February 28, 2024. Plant establishment period ended on June 4, 2023.

BACKGROUND:

On August 5, 2021 the City Council adopted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan for the City of Salinas. The plan identified ADA compliance deficiencies in facilities in the right of way including sidewalks, push buttons, bus stops and curb ramps. The Sidewalk Repair Program is a program that incorporates various divisions and programs in an effort to address ADA compliance in the right of way.

The Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP 9720, continues the City’s ongoing efforts to repair and/or rehabilitate sidewalks, curbs and gutters, pedestrian curb ramps and driveways that are deteriorated or damaged, and to make the required improvements to meet current ADA requirements. Project construction plans and specifications were approved by the City Engineer on December 6, 2023.

On January 10, 2023, City Council awarded JJR Construction Inc. the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP 9720 for a contracted amount of $3,761,531.32 and authorized additional work in the amount of $750,000 (Resolution No. 22559) and allowing 120 working days for project completion. Construction commenced on March 20, 2023. A total of 33 street segments received sidewalk repairs or ADA improvements.

Page | 2
Table 1 identifies the street segments completed by JJR Construction through the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP 9720.

Table 1. Sidewalk Repair Segments
Location Street Limits Zip
Code
1 Las Casitas Dr Between Natividad Creek Bridge & Rider Avenue 93905 2 Nogal Dr Between Las Casitas & Pacana Circle 93905
3 Amarillo Way Between Nogal Drive & Rider Avenue 93905 4 Caribbean Ave Between Hawaii Place & Pacific Avenue 93905 5 Atlantic St Between Garner Avenue & Del Monte Avenue 93905 6 Kimmel St Between N. Sanborn Road & Beech Street 93905 7 Alisal St 1819 E. Alisal Street 93905
8 Meadow Dr Between John Street (East) & John Street (West) 93905 9 N Madeira Ave Between E. Market Street & E. Alisal Street 93905 10 Roosevelt St Between N. Madeira & N. Pearl Street 93905 11 N Pearl St Between E. Market Street & E. Alisal Street 93905 12 N Sanborn St Between Eucalyptus Drive & N. Madeira Avenue 93905 13 Cherokee Dr Between Seminole Way & Cul-De-Sac 93906
14 Crescent Way Between Adams Street & N. First Street 93906 15 Northridge Dr Between Swaner Avenue (East) & Swaner Avenue (West) 93906 16 Louise St Between Cleveland Avenue & Lenny Street 93906 17 Lenny St Between Louise Streeet & Hoover Street 93906 18 Emerald Dr Between Arcadia Way & Humboldt Drive 93906 19 Donner Way Between Arcadia Way & Humboldt Drive 93906 20 Pescadero Dr Between Inglewood Street & Los Coches Avenue 93906 21 Glendora Way Between Inglewood Street & Compton Way 93906 22 Lexington Dr Between Independence Boulevard & Provincetown Drive 93906 23 San Miguel Ave Between San Juan Drive & San Fernando Drive 93901 24 Palma Dr Between Sierra Madre Drive & Iverson Street 93901 25 San Vincente Ave Between W. Acacia Street & Palma Drive 93901 26 W Acacia St Between San Vincente Avenue & Iverson Street and Between S. Davis Road & W. Alisal Street 93901
27 Coleridge Dr 330 Coleridge Drive 93901
28 Maryal Dr Between Chaparral Street& East Laurel Drive 93906 29 Adams St Between Mohawk Avenue &West Laurel Drive 93906 30 Klamath Dr Between Calaveras Drive & Arcadia Way 93906 31 Marin Ave Between East Alvin Drive & Rainier Drive 93906 32 Mae Ave ADA Ramp Install at Del Monte Ave and Cortez St 93905 33 Bellehaven Ave ADA Ramp Install at Bellehaven St and 1st Ave 93905 Page | 3
Table 2 summarizes the project’s measurable outputs. Staff notes that planting of trees is dependent on the residents’ willingness to water the street tree. Of the locations identified for new street tree locations, only a limited number of residents agreed to accepting a new street tree.

Table 2 Project Summary
Construction Activity Description Quantity Unit
Remove and Reconstruct Concrete Sidewalk 3.4 miles
Remove and Reconstruct Curb and Gutter 2.07 miles
Remove and Reconstruct Driveway Approaches 16,070 sq. ft.

Grind Sidewalk Offsets 1.29 miles
Construct ADA Curb Ramps 199 each
Remove Street Trees 201 each
Planted Street Trees 27 each
A total of ten change orders totaling $1,030,517.32 were issued for a total construction cost, including contract change orders, of $4,792,048.64, as detailed on Table 3. A total of 103 additional working days were issued to complete the additional work requested. Contract change orders were approved in accordance with Department Policy 75-1, revised December 4, 2018.

Table 3: Contract Change Orders
Contract/
Change Order Description Working Days
Change Order
Amount
Cumulative
Contact Total
Contract Base Bid 1-6 120 $3,761,531.32
CCO 1 4 Additional Street Locations 60 $724,083.15 $4,485,614.47 CCO 2 Add River Rock and Additional HMA
Installation 0 $25,000.00 $4,510,614.47
CCO 3 Damaged City Light Cable Upgrade 0 $5,407.15 $4,516,021.62 CCO 4 Concrete Roadway Ramp Tie-in 10 $25,000.00 $4,541,021.62 CCO 5 City Hall Sidewalk Grinding 3 $7,402.50 $4,548,424.12 CCO 6 Additional Working Days
Authorization for Missed Ramps
5 $0.00 $4,548,424.12
CCO 7
Additional Working Days
Authorization for Additional Tree
Removals
15 $0.00 $4,548,424.12
CCO 8 Additional ADA Ramp Installation 10 $90,795.10 $4,639,219.22 CCO 9 Balance Change Order 0 $19,771.43 $4,658,990.65
CCO 10 Balance Change Order 0 $133,057.99 $4,792,048.64 TOTAL 223 $1,030,517.32 $4,792,048.64
The project was substantially completed on February 28, 2024. The plant establishment period ended on June 4, 2023. Relief of maintenance of non-punchlist items was issued on June 25, 2024.

The construction methods and materials met the Project Specifications as set forth by the contract documents and the project has been deemed complete.

On November 16, 2021, City Council appropriated American Rescue Plan Act Funds (Resolution No. 22250), allocating $6M for sidewalk repairs, majority to be spent in 93905 and 93906. ARPA Page | 4
funding was divided to be spent in two years on separate sidewalk repair projects. Additional funding for this project was allocated from CIP 9720 (General Fund, Measure G and Measure X).

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This item relates to the Council’s Goal of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability and Public Safety by investing in the sidewalk repair program and allowing increased mobility for seniors, youth, and disabled individuals.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The majority of the coordination is within the Public Works Department. The Divisions working together are the Engineering Division and Maintenance (Urban Forestry and Streets Divisions) for updates and coordination on the Sidewalk Repair request list, evaluation of tree roots, and tracking of tree removals and planting. Public Works coordinates contract execution and funding with the Finance and Legal Departments.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

This action has no impact to the general fund. The project was constructed within its allocated budget, allowance, and 10% contingency.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Before/After Photos
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, CIP 9720
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2021, City Council adopted the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Transition Plan which identified ADA compliance deficiencies in facilities in the right of way; and
WHEREAS, the Sidewalk Repair Program is a program that incorporates various divisions and programs to address ADA compliance in the right of way; and WHEREAS, the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP 9720 continues the City’s ongoing efforts to repair and/or rehabilitate sidewalks, curbs and gutters, pedestrian curb ramps and driveways that are deteriorated or damaged and to make the require improvement to meet current ADA requirements; and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2023, City Council awarded the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP 9720 to JJR Construction Inc. for a contract amount of $3,761,531.32 and authorized additional work in the amount of $750,000; and
WHEREAS, a total of ten change orders totaling $1,030,517.32 were issued, with the final contract cost including contract change orders, is $4,792,048.64; and WHEREAS, a total of 33 street segments have been repaired and a total of 199 pedestrian curb ramps were installed; and
WHEREAS, the project has been deemed completed on June 25, 2024; and WHEREAS, the project was completed within its allocated budget plus allowance and contingency; and
WHEREAS, the project was determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301(c), Class I).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby accepts the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP 9720 for maintenance and responsibility.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 20
th day of August 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
2 ABSTAIN:

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

CITYWIDE SIDEWALK

REPAIR PROJECT ACCEPTANCE
By Adriana Robles, PE
City Engineer
Public Works Department
For City Council
August 20, 2024

PROJECT

LOCATIONS

BEFORE AFTER

BEFORE AFTER

BEFORE AFTER

BEFORE AFTER
BEFORE
AFTER
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-444, Version: 1
Determination of Zoning Code Exemption for Closter Park Revitalization Project Approve a Resolution exempting the Closter Park Revitalization Project (Project, CIP 9350) from Chapter 37, section 37-50.010(d)(5)(B) Accessory Uses and Structures under Section 37-10.070 Applicability to City and Redevelopment Agency Owned Property finding the Closter Park Revitalization Project to be proper and in the interest of the public.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: LISA BRINTON, DIRECTOR

KRISTAN LUNDQUIST, DIRECTOR

DAVID JACOBS, DIRECTOR
BY: OSCAR RESINDEZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

ANA AMBRIZ, REC-PARK SUPERINTENDENT
TITLE: DETERMINATION OF ZONING CODE EXEMPTION FOR

CLOSTER PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution exempting the Closter Park Revitalization Project (Project, CIP 9350) from Chapter 37, section 37-50.010(d)(5)(B) Accessory Uses and Structures under Section 37-10.070 Applicability to City and Redevelopment Agency Owned Property finding the Closter Park Revitalization Project to be proper and in the interest of the public.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City is currently finalizing plans for the Closter Park Revitalization Project, located at the cityowned, 6.95-acre Closter Park. As part of the project, the City plans on maintaining an existing non-conforming Conex Box as an Accessory Structure. Council may grant an exemption to allow the continued use of non-conforming structure based on finding the Project to be proper for the site and in the interest of the public as allowed under Zoning Code Section 37-10.070.

BACKGROUND:

In 2019, the City of Salinas completed the Parks, Recreation, and Library Services Master Plan (PRLMP). The development of this PRLMP was led by a Steering Committee of stakeholders, residents, and organizational leaders and involved extensive public engagement in the planning process. 98% of City residents answering a survey felt that public parks, recreational opportunities, and library services are important or essential to the quality of life in Salinas; more than half (57%) rated the park and recreation system as “fair” or “poor.” City parks and open spaces were the focus Page | 2
of one of the four Open House sessions, with participants placing high priorities on safety and maintenance, trails for walking and biking, water play, dog parks, and family/social gatherings.

One outcome of the PRLMP was the development of a 20-year Capital Improvements Plan for Park and Facility Projects, and Closter Park was ranked #1 for parks in terms of needing improvement. The park received the highest rankings in all six criteria – significance, funding leverage, community need, safety/security, usage/benefit, and location/demographics. The PRLMP identified the following main improvements for Closter Park: renovations of a restroom and concession stand; installation of a new restroom; installation of skate elements; repairs to chain link fences and baseball backstops; ball field improvements including adding plantings, dugouts, batting cages, several ADA and safety elements; and numerous other repairs and refurbishing.

On December 8, 2021, the California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) selected the City of Salinas Closter Park Improvement Project application for funding. The grant award is for $6.8 Million Dollars and will fund a comprehensive renovation of Closter Park. On December 13, 2022, the Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an Agreement for Professional Services (Agreement) between the City of Salinas and BFS Landscape Architects for the design, program, and construction management for Closter Park.

In December 2023, the Council approved a Schematic Design developed by BFS Landscape Architects (BFS) using the information gathered from park users through extensive community engagement efforts in 2021 and again in 2023. Per Zoning Code Section 37-30.340, Table 37-

30.150, Park and Recreation Facilities are subject to approval of an administrative Site Plan Review (SPR) in the Parks (P) District. The City is currently working with BFS Landscape Architects on the design, program, and construction management for Closter Park going through the Administrative Site Plan Review (SPR) process with the Current Planning Division.

National Little League currently uses a non-confirming Conex Box as an Accessory Structure to secure and store equipment throughout the year. Per Zoning Code Section 37-50.010(d)(5)(B), the architectural design of accessory structures shall be compatible with the design of the principal structure by use of complementary building colors and materials, window and roofing treatments, and architectural detailing. Due to limited funding availability, the park renovation project does not include replacing the Conex Box with a storage structure that would comply with Zoning Code 37-50.010(d)(5)(B).

Council may approve an exception to the zoning requirements for Accessory Structures and allow the Conex Box to remain in place based on finding the Project to be proper for the site and in the interest of the public as allowed under Zoning Code Section 37-10.070.

To streamline the entitlement process for the Project, meet grant funding timelines, and avoid increased costs, it is recommended that the City Council grant an exemption as allowed under Zoning Code Section 37-10.070 and find the continued use of the existing non-conforming Conex Box appropriate and in the public interest.

Page | 3
CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The exemption to Chapter 37, section 37-50.010(d)(5)(B) Accessory Uses and Structures under Section 37-10.070 Applicability to City and Redevelopment Agency Owned Property and finding the Closter Park Revitalization Project to be proper and in the interest of the public in not considered a Project under CEQA.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The Closter Park Revitalization Project furthers City Council’s Strategic Plan Goals of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability, Public Safety as well as Youth and Seniors and is identified as a priority in the PRLMP and Alisal Vibrancy Plan.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Public Works, Library & Community Services (LCS) and Community Development (CD) Departments are collaboratively working together to facilitate the entitlement, design, and development of the Project.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact to the General Fund resulting from this action. The Project is funded through the California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) grant award of $6.8 million and is supplemented by CIP 9246 (Alisal Vibrancy Plan).

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution: Determination of Zoning Code Exception for Closter Park 1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL EXEMPTING THE CLOSTER PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT (CIP9350) FROM CHAPTER 37, SECTION 37-

50.010(D)(5)(B) ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES UNDER SECTION 37-10.070

APPLICABILITY TO CITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OWNED PROPERTY

FINDING THE CLOSTER PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT TO BE PROPER AND IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC.

WHEREAS, the Closter Park Revitalization Project (Project) is located at a 6.95-acre cityowned park (Closter Park), Per Zoning Code Section 37-30.340, Table 37-30.150, Park and Recreation Facilities are subject to approval of an administrative Site Plan Review (SPR) in the Parks (P) District; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, the Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an Agreement for Professional Services (Agreement) between the City of Salinas and BFS Landscape Architects for the design, program, and construction management for Closter Park.; and
WHEREAS, staff is currently working with BFS Landscape Architecture, on the design and the entitlement requirements to modify the existing ballfields and amenities, construct two (2) new restrooms, amphitheater, farmer’s market / multi-use space, street skate space, and associated site improvements; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 37 Zoning Code, Section 37- 50.010(d)(5)(B) The architectural design of accessory structures shall be compatible with the design of the principal structure by use of complementary building colors and materials, window and roofing treatments, and architectural detailing; and
WHEREAS, there is an existing non-conforming Conex Box located at Closter Park that is used to secure and store equipment throughout the year; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Zoning Code Section 37-10.070, notwithstanding any other regulations of this Zoning Code, land owned or leased by the City, or the Salinas Redevelopment Agency may be developed and used for such public purposes and in such a manner as may be determined by the Salinas City Council or the Salinas Redevelopment Agency, as applicable, to be proper and in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, establishing the exemption to the zoning requirements for Accessory Structures and allow the Conex Box will streamline the Project’s entitlement approval; and WHEREAS, the exemption to Chapter 37, section 37-50.010(d)(5)(B) Accessory Uses and Structures under Section 37-10.070 Applicability to City and Redevelopment Agency Owned Property and finding the Closter Park Revitalization Project to be proper and in the interest of the public in not considered a Project under CEQA.
2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves a resolution determining an exemption to the Accessory Structure Zoning Code requirements per zoning code 37-50.010(d)(5)(B) to allow a Conex Box as an alternative Accessory Structure for the Closter Park Revitalization Project based on finding the Project to be proper and in the interest of the public.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of August 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-450, Version: 1
Server Room HVAC Condenser Units
Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter in an Agreement for Services for the purchase and the installation of server room HVAC condenser unit replacements at City Hall for $59,203 to include a 10% ($5,920.30) contingency for a total amount not to exceed $65,123.30.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
DEPARTMENT: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

SEAN SCHMIDT, FACILITIES MAINTENANCE MANAGER

CARLOS ORTEGA, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER
TITLE: SERVER ROOM HVAC CONDENSER UNITS
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter in an Agreement for Services for the purchase and the installation of server room HVAC condenser unit replacements at City Hall for$59,203 to include a 10% ($5,920.30) contingency for a total amount not to exceed $65,123.30.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Server room HVAC condensing unit coils have failed due to corrosion and age. The fins are falling off, when trying to clean the units. The system is low on refrigerant charge, which indicates a leak causing the unit not to blow cold air into the server room. The failed coils are causing the server room to overheat posing issue to the servers which can affect the whole city. Replacing the Server room HVAC Condensers System will create substantial energy savings by not having the units running 24/7 and servers going out because of the heat in the room.

BACKGROUND:

The Public Works Facilities Division has been working with the Information Technology (IT) Division and the on-call service contractor, Environmental Systems Inc. (ESI) on issues pertaining to City Hall’s HVAC System for a couple of years. Earlier this year, while servicing the units, it was noted that the units are running all the time and cannot keep up with the cooling for the server room.

In May, Environmental Systems Inc. (ESI) was servicing City Hall HVAC systems and informed Facilities that the building’s HVAC coils for the server room are failing. The HVAC system that was installed back in 2014, was assessed as part of its quarterly maintenance, and it was determined that there were leaks in the coils causing the buildings air to not keep up with the specific temperature. The coils are operating continually and ultimately will fail. The failed coils will cause the building to drastically overheat and be unable to provide code requirements for an occupied public space and systems for the city. The assessment recommended to replace the whole Page | 2
condenser HVAC units. The replacement will not only allow Facilities to detect proper function, but it will improve efficiencies by allowing them to address any issues.

Due to manufacturing and shipping constraints, there is a 28-week lead time for equipment delivery. This was a like-in-kind maintenance replacement project.

Staff is seeking Council approval of this replacement of the Server Room HVAC Condenser units pursuant to Section 12-27 of the Salinas Municipal Code, staff is requesting exceptions to competitive bidding for this agreement given that ESI is the City’s on-call service contractor for the HVAC systems and that competitive bidding of this system would further extend the timeline for replacement.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This project addresses the current City Council’s Goals of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability by improving city facilities.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Facilities Division along with the IT Division Manager, have worked together to identify funding for the replacement of the Server room HVAC Condensers. The Public Works Facilities Division has been working to address system failures and bring the item before Council for approval. The Facilities Divisions will ensure timely replacement and proper protocols are followed.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There are sufficient funds in the budget as identified in the following table.

Fund Appropriation Appropriation
Name
Total
Appropriation
Amount for
recommendation
FY 24-25
Operating
Budget Page
Last Budget
Action (Date,
Resolution)*
1000 20.2033-63.4300 Outside servicesMaint & Repairs
Equip
$72,000 $65,123.30 123 6/11/24, 22979
* The FY 24-25 Adopted Budget was adopted on June 11, 2024.

ATTACHMENTS:

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

SERVER ROOM HVAC CONDENSER UNITS
WHEREAS, Public Works Facilities Division has been working with the IT Manager and the on-call service contractor, Environmental Systems Inc. (ESI) on issues pertaining to City Hall Server room HVAC System; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2024, the Facilities Division informed the IT Manager that the HVAC condensers are failing; and
WHEREAS, replacement of the Condensers is recommended; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12-27 competitive bidding would further delay ordering and replacing the HVAC Condensers and ESI is the city’s HVAC service contractor and is most intimately familiar with the system; and
WHEREAS, The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby approves emergency replacement of the Server room HVAC Condensers as part of the existing on-call service contract with ESI for $59,203; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an additional 10% of new contract amount for contingencies in the amount of $5,920.30 is authorized for the Emergency Sever room HVAC Condenser Replacements for a total contract cost not to exceed $65,123.30, with said amount being paid from the General fund, and coming from the updated project, “Adaptations to City Hall/City Facility HVAC”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary documents related to the Server Room HVAC Condenser Replacements.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of August 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
2 APPROVED:
______________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 1 of 10
Environmental Systems, Inc.

May 2024

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SALINAS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS INC.

SERVER ROOM HVAC CONDENSER UNITS
THIS AGREEMENT is executed this 20th day of August 2024, (“Agreement” or “Contract”) between the City of Salinas, a California Charter city and municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”) and Environmental Systems Inc., a California Corporation (Hereinafter “Contractor”).

IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Scope. Contractor hereby agrees to provide to the City, as the scope of services under this Agreement, the following services: Sherwood Hall HVAC Control System Replacement.

Contractor’s Proposal dated July 25, 2024, Attachment B.

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

3. Term. The work under this Agreement shall commence on February 1st, 2025, and shall be completed by July 30, 2025, unless City grants a written extension of time as set forth in Section 2 above.

Payment. City agrees to pay, and Contractor agrees to accept as full and fair consideration for the performance of this Agreement, of Fifty-Nine thousand, Two Hundred and Three dollars ($59,203.00), and to include a 10% ($5,920.30) contingency for a total amount not to exceed $65,1233.30 as more fully described in title of Contractors fee schedule, Attachment B. Contractor has no right of reimbursement for expenses under this Agreement. Compensation shall become due and payable 30 days after City’s approval of Contractor’s submission of monthly written invoices to the City. The payment of any compensation shall be contingent upon performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the City. If City determines that the work set forth in the written invoice has not been performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, City shall not be responsible for payment until such time as the work has been satisfactorily performed.

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

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

7. Indemnification. Contractor shall hold harmless, defend at its own expense, and indemnify City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against all Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 2 of 10
Environmental Systems, Inc.

May 2024
liability, claims, damages, losses, and/or expenses including reasonable City attorney fees arising from all acts or omissions of Contractor or its officers, agents, or employees arising out of the performance of the work under this Contract, caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Contractor, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, except where caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 3 of 10
Environmental Systems, Inc.

May 2024

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

CONTRACTOR
___________________________________
By (Printed Name):___________________
Its (Title):___________________________
Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 4 of 10
Environmental Systems, Inc.

May 2024
Attachment A
Insurance Requirements
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, and for three years thereafter, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, his/her/its officers, agents, representatives, employees, and/or subcontractors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations and automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 5 of 10
Environmental Systems, Inc.

May 2024
or on behalf of the Contractor. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, CG 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maintenance of Insurance
Maintenance of insurance by Contractor as specified shall in no way be interpreted as relieving Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 6 of 10
Environmental Systems, Inc.

May 2024
Contractor of its indemnification obligations or any responsibility whatsoever and the Contractor may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it deems necessary.

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

Surety Bonds
Contractor shall provide the following Surety Bonds:

1. Payment bond

2. Performance bond

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

Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 7 of 10
Environmental Systems, Inc.

May 2024
Attachment B
Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page
8 of 10
Environmental Systems, Inc.

May 2024
Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 9 of 10
Environmental Systems, Inc.

May 2024
Attachment C
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS’ STATE LABOR CODE
Labor Law Requirements
(CCR Title 8, Section 16421)
This public works project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). All work shall be in accordance with wage scales and applicable determinations made by the Director of the DIR, as provided by Article 2, Chapter 1, Division 2, Part 7 of the Labor Code of the State of California, commencing with §1771.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Certified Payroll Records: All contractors, including subcontractors, must maintain and file certified payroll records (“CPRs”) pursuant to Labor Code §1776. Additionally, all contractors and subcontractors must furnish certified payroll records into the DIR’s Electronic Certified Payroll Reporting (“eCPRs”) database Agreement for Services v. January 2021 Page 10 of 10
Environmental Systems, Inc.

May 2024
(https://efiling.dir.ca.gov/eCPR/pages/eCPROnlineForm.jsp). Penalties apply to Contractor and any Subcontractors for failure to do so under Labor Code §1777.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1 of 2 ends

July 25, 2024

City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Ave
Salinas, CA 93901
Email: [email protected];
Attention: Sean Schmidt
Reference: City Hall- Server Room
Quote: CITY506-24
Environmental Systems, Inc. proposes to provide the labor and material to complete the following:

The City Hall server room is served by two (2) Compu-Aire dedicated HVAC Units. Both condensing unit coils have failed due to corrosion and age. The fins on the coil are falling off. The smaller of the two (2) units is low on charge and only has a 8’ split across the coil. The condensers are still available from the MFG operating with 407c refrigerant. The coming mandated refrigerant changes in 2025 may require for both the condensing units and air-handlers replaced Proposed Work:

1. Recover existing refrigerant per EPA guidelines

2. Remove two (2) existing Compu-Aire condensing units that serve the IT server room

3. Re-pipe the condensing units to an adjacent area approx. 30' piping

4. Mount and install two (2) new condensers

5. Evacuate system and recharge system to proper operating levels

6. Start and test system operations
*The units mfg. production time is 28 weeks. The equipment order needs to be placed by Aug 1st to guarantee the delivery of the condensing units as 407C refrigerant units* Total Price for the above scope: $59,203.00
Bond: $1160.00
Labor: $24,440.00
Materials: $33,603.00
Exclusions:

Line voltage electrical Relocation, Overtime labor, permits, service, repairs or component replacement other than stated above.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance.

If you are satisfied with our proposal and would like us to proceed, please sign below and email to [email protected]. Price is valid for 30 days.

Kenneth J Filice
Senior Project Manager
Acceptance of the above proposal:

The price, specifications, and conditions of this proposal are satisfactory and hereby acceptable. I/We have read and acknowledge, and understand Environmental Systems Inc.’s General Terms and conditions attached, and hereby incorporate the same as part of this Proposal & Contract. I/We agree to make all payments as outlined above.

P.O. Number: _____________________________________ Amount: __________________________________ Signature: _________________________________________ Date: _____________________________________ Print Name: _______________________________________________ 3353 DE LA CRUZ BLVD. SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 TEL: (408) 980-1711 FAX: (408) 477-7295 CCL#422478 www.esite.net

Page 2 of 2 ends

Environmental Systems Inc – General Terms and Conditions SECTION 1. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The proposal on page 1, and these General Terms and Conditions represents the entire agreement. Owner may issue a Purchase order for accounting purposes, but these General terms and conditions will prevail.

SECTION 2. PAYMENT TERMS: Owner agrees to pay Environmental Systems Inc as follows: (A) 100% upon completion of project. (B) Any other payment terms must be mutually agreed to in writing between Owner and Environmental Systems Inc. (C) Progress payments based on amount of work completed each month.

SECTION 3. CHANGES IN WORK. Contractor shall not be required to make any changes in the work without a mutually agreed to written change order authorization which includes the new scope of work and agreed to price. If Owner provides verbal direction, Owner agrees to follow up in writing within 5 days, but in no event shall verbal direction preclude Environmental Systems Inc from being reimbursed for the change order work. Written changes will not be required if Contractor acts in response to an emergency situation.

SECTION 4. CLAIMS. If any dispute shall arise between Owner and Contractor regarding performance of the work, or any alleged change in the work, Contractor may perform the disputed work and shall submit a notice of a claim for additional compensation for the work within ten (10) days after commencement of the disputed work. Any and all claims shall first be addressed in an Owner/Contractor meeting for resolution. If that is unsuccessful, Contractor may request and Owner agrees to binding arbitration. SECTION 5.

GUARANTEE. Environmental Systems Inc guarantees and warrants all materials and workmanship and agrees to replace at his sole cost and expense any and all materials adjudged defective or damaged from said installation during a period of either (A) 30 days for repair work or (B) one year from completion for installation of new equipment. These specifications shall control unless a greater period of guarantee is provided by Equipment or material manufacturers.

SECTION 6. INSURANCE. Environmental Systems Inc shall, at its expense, procure limits and maintain insurance on all of its operations. The following will be considered acceptable insurance requirements on all projects. a. Workers Compensation and Employer’s Liability insurance; amounts as required by statute. b. Comprehensive General Liability or Commercial General Liability insurance covering all operations: $1,000,000.00 c. Automobile Liability insurance, including coverage for allow owned, hired and non-owned automobiles: $1,000,000.00 All insurance coverages shall be in amounts and for duration of the project.

SECTION 7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Environmental Systems Inc is an independent contractor and not an agent for Owner
SECTION 8. ASBESTOS. Contractor agrees to stop work immediately and notify Owner should asbestos or asbestos related products be discovered during the course of construction. Work will continue only after the asbestos hazard has been abated by Owner and the Owner has authorized work to be restarted. Any such Asbestos remediation is not included in this contract.

SECTION 9. SEVERABILITY. If any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, or the applicability of any such provision to a specific situation, is deemed invalid or unenforceable, then such provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make it or its application valid or enforceable, and the validity and enforceability of all other provisions of this agreement, and all other applications of such provisions, shall not be affected.

SECTION 10. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. Contractor and Owner agree that this contract shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of California. The jurisdiction and venue for any dispute arising from this contract shall be Santa Clara County, California.

SECTION 11. ATTORNEYS FEES. If any action is commenced between the parties hereto concerning the project or enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to, in addition to such other relief as may be granted, court costs, legal expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED, BY LAW, TO BE LICENSED AND REGULATED BY THE CONTRACTORS’ STATE LICENSE

BOARD WHICH HAS JURISDICTION TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS AGAINST CONTRACTORS IF A COMPLAINT REGARDING A PATENT ACT OR OMISSION IS FILED WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION. A

COMPLAINT REGARDING A LATENT ACT OR OMISSION PERTAINING TO STRUCTURAL DEFECTS MUST BE FILED WITHIN 10 YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING A CONTRACTOR MAY BE REFERRED TO THE REGISTRAR, CONTRACTORS’ STATE LICENSE BOARD, and P.O. BOX 26000, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94826.
3353 DE LA CRUZ BLVD. SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 TEL: (408) 980-1711 FAX: (408) 477-7295 CCL#422478 www.esite.net
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-451, Version: 1
FY 24/25 NPDES Water Quality Monitoring Program
Approve a Resolution approving the 2NDNATURE quote for the FY 2024/2025 water quality monitoring and reporting program in an amount not to exceed $225,000.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, DIRECTOR
BY: HEIDI NIGGEMEYER, NPDES PROGRAM MANAGER
TITLE: EXPENDITURE OF STORMWATER OPERATING BUDGET
FUNDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF FY 24/25 WATER QUALITY

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO MEET NPDES

PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution approving the 2NDNATURE quote for the FY 2024/2025 water quality monitoring and reporting program in an amount not to exceed $225,000.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution approving an expenditure in the amount of $225,000 for services related to the implementation and reporting of water quality monitoring requirements as stipulated in the City of Salinas NPDES Permit (Permit No.

CA0049981) for Permit Year 2024-2025.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Salinas was issued its current stormwater NPDES permit from the Central Coast Water Board (CCWB) in 2019. Attachment D of the NPDES permit outlines the minimum sampling, analysis, and reporting requirements the City must implement in its water quality Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) to be compliant with the NPDES permit. The Salinas stormwater MRP addresses the following:
 Urban Catchment Monitoring
 Receiving Water Monitoring
 Background Receiving Water Monitoring
 TMDL Program Monitoring
Ideally, results from the MRP can be utilized to assess pollutant loading to our local waterbodies as a result of activities within the City as well as from activities outside of our City limits (agriculture); these results help determine the success of the implementation of stormwater management activities in addition to identifying areas that require further mitigation. This Page | 2
program implements water quality monitoring whose results are more representative of discharges from the City’s urban areas. The monitoring results from this MRP will provide data from which to make more informed programmatic decisions for implementation of the City’s stormwater program.

The City currently has a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with 2NDNATURE approved by Council Resolution 21374 on May 1, 2018. Additionally, on March 6, 2023, this MSA was extended until May 1, 2024, via Amendment 1 and then further extended to October 1, 2025, via Amendment 2 on April 23, 2024, with a not to exceed amount of $2,500,000. 2NDNATURE and their team of subconsultants includes scientists and technicians highly qualified and well regarded in the field of stormwater monitoring and stormwater program implementation. Staff requested that 2NDNATURE provide a cost proposal for required MRP services for permit year 2024/2025. The sampling and monitoring required per the NPDES permit is detailed in the proposal provided by 2NDNATURE. In the attached proposal (Exhibit A), Table 1 details the sampling requirements (frequency and monitoring constituents). The proposal provided by 2NDNATURE was reviewed by City Public Works staff and was found to be consistent with the MSA and compliant with the NPDES permit, and reasonable for the work necessary to be completed for the current stormwater permit for fiscal year 2024/2025.

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:

Approval of the expenditure is in alignment with the City’s Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability by maintaining compliance with all regulatory permits and furthering the City’s sustainability goals.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

There is coordination with the Environmental Maintenance Wastewater staff during monitoring site maintenance and sample bottle collection.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Funding is available and appropriated in 6500.50.5126 (Storm Sewer- NPDES).

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Resolution 21374 Approving 2ndNature Master Services Agreement Dated May 1, 2018 Signed Amendment 1 to the Master Services Agreement Dated March 6, 2023 Page | 3
Signed Amendment 2 to the Master Services Agreement Dated April 23, 2024 Exhibit A - Scope of Work for FY 24/25

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. _______(N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF $225,000 PER THE MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALINAS AND 2NDNATURE

FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 PER SALINAS

STORMWATER NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

WHEREAS, the City of Salinas was issued its current stormwater permit from the Central Coast Water Board (CCWB) in 2019, and
WHEREAS, the current stormwater permit has substantial water monitoring requirements in order to be compliant with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and
WHEREAS, the City currently has a five-year Master Services Agreement with 2NDNATURE via Resolution 21374, approved on May 1, 2018; and WHEREAS, an Amendment to extend the Master Services Agreement with 2NDNATURE until May 2024 was approved on March 6, 2023; and WHEREAS, a second Amendment to extend the Master Services Agreement with 2NDNATURE until October 1, 2025, with an amount Not To Exceed $2.5M was approved on April 23, 2024; and
WHEREAS, The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378); and
WHEREAS, 2NDNATURE is a team of scientists and technicians with expertise in water quality monitoring program design and implementation; and WHEREAS, 2NDNATURE has provided estimate of $225,000 for the provide services for FY 24/25; and
WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed this estimate and has found it to be consistent with the Master Services Agreement and reasonable and acceptable to complete the required monitoring program for FY 24/25.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council, consistent with the authority granted to the City Council pursuant to Salinas City Code Section 12-27, approves the 2NDNATURE quote for the FY 2024/2025 water quality monitoring and reporting program in an amount not to exceed $225,000.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of August 2024, by the following vote:

Page 2 of 2 ends

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

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

Page 1 of 2 ends

Version: November 2022
AGREEMENT —AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SALINAS AND 2NDNATURE LLC

This Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement for Professional Services (the “Amendment”) is entered into this 23rd day of April 2024, by and between the City of Salinas (the “City”) and 2NDNATURE LLC, (the “Consultant”). City and Consultant may be individually referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively the City and Consultant may be referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City and Consultant first entered into an Agreement for Professional Services effective May 1, 2018, pursuant to which Consultant agreed to act as and provide certain services to the City for compensation (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the City and Consultant amended the Agreement on March 6, 2023, to extend the term of the Agreement until May 1, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City and Consultant desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement in order to ensure continuity of services and completion of NPDES permit requirements until a new NPDES permit is adopted in late 2025.

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

TERMS

1. The Agreement, Section 2 “Term: Completion Schedule”, is amended and restated in its entirety with the following:

This Agreement shall commence on 1 May 2018, and shall terminate on 1 October 2025, unless extended in writing by either party upon (30) days written notice. This Agreement may be extended only upon mutual written consent of the parties and may be terminated only pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

2. The Agreement, Section 3 “Compensation”, is amended and restated in its entirety with the following:

City hereby agrees to pay Consultant on a time and materials basis for services rendered the City Not To Exceed $2.5M for the duration of the Agreement, in accord with Consultant’s hourly rates of compensation set forth in Exhibit B.

3. All other covenants, terms, and conditions set forth in the Agreement and not amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, as authorized representatives of the City and Consultant have entered into this Agreement as of the date first written above.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0B908D94-8C13-43ED-B902-A866E7A21CB7

Page 2 of 2 ends

Version: November 2022

CITY OF SALINAS
___________________________________
Jim Pia
Interim City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
□ Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
□ Rhonda Combs, Assistant City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
2NDNATURE LLC
____________________________________
Printed name: Nicole Beck
Title: Principal
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0B908D94-8C13-43ED-B902-A866E7A21CB7 City of Salinas
Monitoring and Reporting Program FY24/25
Scope and Budget

DESCRIPTION & PERMIT REQUIREMENT
The City of Salinas is required to perform a Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) as indicated in Section K and Attachment D of the NPDES permit. The current MRP was adopted in July 2017 and is in its seventh monitoring year. The City will continue with the current MRP program while an updated MRP is refined and approved by the Water Board in the City’s NPDES permit renewal. Resources under this scope will support the monitoring and reporting program under the current and approved MRP for fiscal year 24/25 (see Table 1 with a schedule of the required pollutant monitoring). Salinas’ monitoring program includes continuous hydrology measurements and water quality stormwater sample collection at three urban drainage outfalls to directly sample and better understand the stormwater volume and pollutant loads generated from the City and discharged to regulated receiving waters. Additionally, stormwater grab samples are collected from the Salinas Pump Station to characterize water quality discharged to the Salinas River. Water quality samples are collected at Gabilan and Natividad upstream of the Salinas MS4 boundary to determine water quality conditions associated with upstream drainages. The attached map illustrates all the designated monitoring sites under the MRP. All data collected will be managed, reviewed, synthesized, and summarized in annual report.

CONTRACT OBJECTIVES:
● Coordinate all stakeholders and consultants to effectively monitor stormwater to meet permit compliance including field sampling teams at urban outfalls, receiving waters, and analytical laboratories.
● Perform and collect stormwater samples at designated urban outfalls for a minimum of three rain events.
● Perform and collect stormwater samples at background receiving water sites and receiving water site at nine visits per year.
● Compile all analytical, hydrology, and water quality data and prepare data for the annual report submitted to the Regional Board.

BUDGET: $225,000
See Table 2 for more information on the cost distribution.

Pollutant Sampling Schedule
MRP sample frequency analyte schedule at all monitoring stations.

Site Classification Site ID
Photo Monitoring Flow (cfs)
Precipitation Temperature Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Turbidity Fecal Coliform pH Conductivity Dissolved Oxygen Hardness Total Ammonia Unionized Ammonia Total Nitrogen Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) Orthophosphate Total Phosphorus (as P) Total Arsenic Total Cadmium Total Copper Total Lead Total Nickel Total Zinc Dissolved Zinc Pyrethroids Fipronil Imidacloprid Hyalella Azteca (96-hr) Chironomus dilutus (96-hr) Benthic Invertebrate and Algae Bioassessment
Associated Habitat Assessment
Toxicity: Hyalella Azteca (10-day)
Pyrethroid Pesticides in Sediment
Sediment Grain Size Total Organic Carbon
RD730 I W I P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C C
RD513 I W I P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C C
RD518 I W I P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C C
309U19 F F F G F F G F F G G G G G G G G G G G G
309 ALD F F F G F F G F F F G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 309DAV G G
309GAB F F G G G G G G
309NAD F F G G G G G G
* All analytes besides fecal coliform sampled and analyzed for CMP G Grab Sample Annually; Continuous - instruments @ 10 min, weather precip in daily volume C Composite of Passive Samples Annually; at least 3 rain events including first flush; up to 4 discrete samples per event P Passive sample Annually; First Flush only; up to 4 discrete samples per event at instrumented outfalls I In-situ Probe Yr 1 and Yr 5; First Flush only; Composite of up to 4 samples per event F Field hand held probe One yr only - monthly Oct - Apr (include 2 rain events: first flush event +1 other) and 2 dry months -July and Sep W Weather Station One year only - once in dry, once in wet season One year only - once in spring
Annually; monthly Oct - Apr (include 2 rain events: first flush event +1 other) and 2 dry months -July and Sep Sample Type Sample Frequency
Sediment Analyte
Suite
Bio
Assessments
Urban Drainage
Outfall
Receiving Water
Background
Receiving Water*
Traditional Water Quality Suite
(Nutrients & Chemical) Metals Water Toxicity Parameter Groups Organics TABLE 1
City of Salinas Monitoring and Reporting
Program - Monitoring Locations. City of Salinas Monitoring and Reporting Program - Monitoring Locations.
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!? !?
!?
309GAB
309NAD
309ALD
309U19
RD730 RD513
RD518
309DAV
± 0 0.5 1
Miles
Salinas waterway
urban drainages
!? urban drainage outfall
!? urban drainage outfall (grab sample only)
!? receiving water sample site
!? background receiving water site
Acosta Plaza
Drainage
Alisal
Drainage
Downtown
Drainage
FIGURE 1 FIGURE 3
FY24/25 - Monitoring for WY25
2N 2N 2N 2N 2N PE PE PE PE PE
Hourly Rate $275 $240 $220 $175 $145 $258 $216 $187 $170 $73 Task 2A. Outfall Monitoring and Data Collection
Task 2A.2. Data Collection
Task 2A.2.1. Site maintenance and sample preparation 4 12 20 10 160 $ 33,330 Task 2A.2.2. Event sampling at RD513; RD518; RD730; 309U19 4 12 20 40 200 $ 44,380 Task 2A 8 24 40 50 360 0 0 0 0 0 $ 77,710
Task 2B. Receiving Water Monitoring and Data Collection Task 2B.2.1. Perform monthly sampling (Oct - Apr, Jul & Sep) at GAB&NAD 5 10 24 24 10 $ 12,748 Task 2B.2.2. Collect first flush grab samples at 309U19, 309GAB, 309NAD 1 3 10 10 0 $ 4,476 Task 2B 0 0 0 0 0 6 13 34 34 10 $ 17,224
Task 3A. Outfall Data Management, Analysis, and Event Reporting Task 3A.1. Data management and QA/QC 10 10 20 30 40 $ 20,600 Task 3A.2. Analyze data and generate graphics 10 10 20 40 40 $ 22,350 Task 3A.3. Format and upload data per SWAMP and CEDEN requirements 20 30 $ 8,750 Task 3A.4. Event reporting 8 20 20 40 $ 15,620
Task 3A 20 28 80 90 150 0 0 0 0 0 $ 67,320
Task 3B. Receiving Water Data Management, Analysis, and Event Reporting Task 3B.1. Data management and QA/QC 1 2 $ 690
Task 3B.2. Analyze data and generate graphics 1 2 $ 690 Task 3B.3. Format and upload data per SWAMP and CEDEN requirements (field, toxicity, analytical) 2 $ 432
Task 3B 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 $ 1,812
Task 4. Project Management
Task 4.1. Project Management 12 5 6 30 6 8 6 $ 15,300
Task 4.2. Regional Meetings and Coordination 4 10 5 $ 3,920 Task 4 12 5 10 40 6 13 6 0 0 0 $ 19,220
Total hours 40 57 130 180 516 21 25 34 34 10
Cost per staff $ 11,000 13,680$ 28,600$ 31,500$ 74,820$ 5,418$ 5,400$ 6,358$ 5,780$ 730$ 2NDNATURE: 159,600 $ Pacific EcoRisk 23,686 $ Fully burdened labor 183,286 $ Additional expenses
$ 2,185
$ 28,000
$ -
$ 2,000
$ 3,583
total expenses 35,768 $
10% markup expenses 3,577 $
10% markup subcontractor 2,369 $
Total Annual Cost $ 225,000
Salinas Stormwater Monitoring Plan - FY24/25
2NDNATURE Personnel Pacific EcoRisk Personnel
Principal Research
Director
Senior
Scientist III
Senior
Scientist I
Science
Associate I
Principal/
VP
Project
Manager Scientist II Scientist I Laboratory
Assistant I
Labor per Task
Task 2. Miscellanous Equipment
Task 2.A.1 Stage recorders
Task 2.A.1.3 Raw materials for site security
Task 2.A.2. 2 Weather Forcasting Service
Task 2.A.2 Outfall Sampling: Analytical Laboratory Costs Task 2.B.2 Receiving Water Sampling: Analytical Laboratory Costs Task 2.B.2 Background Receiving Water Sampling: Analytical Laboratory Costs TABLE 2 FY24/25 MRP Budget
Salinas Stormwater Program
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-452, Version: 1
Removal of Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalk at South Hebbron Avenue and Prince Place Approve a Resolution to remove the uncontrolled marked crosswalk at South Hebbron Avenue and Prince Place.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY; ADRIANA ROBLES, CITY ENGINEER

GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: REMOVAL OF UNCONTROLLED MARKED CROSSWALK AT

SOUTH HEBBRON AVENUE AND PRINCE PLACE
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution to remove the uncontrolled marked crosswalk at South Hebbron Avenue and Prince Place.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Salinas adopted the Crosswalk Policy Guidelines establishing that the City should only mark crosswalk locations where there is sufficient crossing demand, and where crosswalks are spaced at least 300 feet apart. City staff determined the uncontrolled marked crosswalk at South Hebbron Avenue and Prince Place does not meet City policy. Staff isrecommending the crosswalk marking to be removed.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Salinas adopted Crosswalk Policy Guidelines (Attachment 1) to prescribe a formal and transparent process for consideration of marked crosswalks. It provides information to be used when making decisions about where standard crosswalks should be marked; where crosswalks with special treatments, such as high-visibility crosswalks, flashing beacons, or 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.

City of Salinas has conducted pavement repair and plans to restripe the roadway of South Hebbron Avenue from East Alisal Street to John Street. The pavement resurfacing project (Attachment 3) required staff to reevaluate the need for the existing crosswalk and determine if preserving the existing uncontrolled crosswalk was warranted. Results of the study indicated that roadway and traffic conditions no longer warrant a marked crosswalk. Crossing demand at this location does not satisfy warrant requirements for a marked crosswalk nor any additional crossing enhancements. Marking a crosswalk where no longer warranted or where crossing conditions are not ideal can increase the collision potential of marked crosswalk.

Page | 2
The uncontrolled marked crosswalk on South Hebbron Avenue at its intersection with Prince Place does not meet the crossing demand required for a striped crosswalk. Recent counts indicated a peak 2-hour crossing demand of 11 pedestrians, see Attachment 2. The crosswalk policy criteria threshold is 40 pedestrians for the peak 2-hour demand. Additionally, the crosswalk would not significantly impact the recommended path to school nor connect two pedestrian generators (school, bus stop, or hospital). A historic connection to the back of Sherwood Elementary School was closed years ago and there is no planned use of this back access. Pedestrians are encouraged to walk from Prince Place or South Hebbron Avenue to either John Street or East Alisal Street where the crossing is controlled by a stop sign and a signalized intersection, respectively.

Consistent with California Vehicle Code Policy, a 30-day notice was posted at the crosswalk indicating the consideration for removal. No written public comments were submitted to City staff at the time of this report.

Traffic and Transportation Commission:

The recommendation for the removal of the uncontrolled marked crosswalk at South Hebbron Avenue at Prince Place was presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its June 13, 2024 meeting. The Commission voted 2-4 against the recommendation to remove the uncontrolled marked crosswalk at South Hebbron Avenue at Prince Place. Commissioners Howell and Pauda voted in support of the recommendation and Commissioners Canseco, Gonzales Reyes, Hamer and Quigley voted against the recommendation.

There wasn't a consistent message from the Commission as to why they voted to leave the crosswalk. Commission Gonzalez Reyes had concerns that we were removing a facility that services the nearby school. He indicated that even though current school administration maintains the back gate closed he felt that in the future this might be opened. We reached out to the school but didn't hear back.

Commission Quigley suggested that the existing crosswalk may slow traffic. Commission Hamer asked why there wasn't a second crosswalk across Hebbron servicing Prince Pl. He stated he was confused about the layout and wasn't understanding.

In response to concerns expressed by the Commission, staff reached out to Sherwood Elementary School. The school confirmed the non-access to the back of the school would continue, stating safety concerns. Additionally, the school participated in the formation of the suggested routes for the Safe Routes to Schools Plan. The plan does not identify the uncontrolled crosswalk as a priority nor as a suggested route to Sherwood Elementary School.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Removal 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.

Page | 3
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This action supports the Council’s initiative of Public Safety by removing the uncontrolled marked crosswalk.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There will be no impact to the City’s general fund. The removal of the crosswalk will occur during pavement resurfacing, which is currently planned and budgeted. When the roadway is restriped, this crosswalk will not be replaced.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1: City of Salinas Crosswalk Policy Guidelines Attachment 2: Crossing Study at S Hebbron Ave and Prince Pl Attachment 3: S Hebbron Ave Pavement Project
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE REMOVAL

OF THE UNCONTROLLED CROSSWALK AT SOUTH HEBBRON AVENUE AND

PRINCE PLACE
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 thru Resolution 20711); and
WHEREAS, the uncontrolled marked crosswalk on South Hebbron Avenue at Prince Place does not meet the crossing demand warrant required for a striped crosswalk per the Salinas Crosswalk Policy; and
WHEREAS, a 30-day notice was posted at the crosswalk indicated the consideration for removal and no written comments were received from residents; and WHEREAS, at its June 13, 2024, meeting, the Traffic and Transportation Commission voted 2-4 against recommending to the Council approving the removal of the uncontrolled marked crosswalk at South Hebbron Avenue and Prince Place; and WHEREAS, Sherwood Elementary School students, parents and residents participating in the formation of the suggested routes for the Safe Routes to Schools Plan, approved by Salinas City Council on December 6, 2022. The plan does not identify the uncontrolled crosswalk as suggested route to school; and
WHEREAS, the removal of the uncontrolled crosswalk would be removed as part of the pavement resurfacing project planned and budgeted for on South Hebbron Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that the removal of the uncontrolled marked crosswalk at South Hebbron Avenue and Prince Place 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 a resolution to remove the uncontrolled marked crosswalk at South Hebbron Avenue and Prince Place.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of August 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
2 ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
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.

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.

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
Sherwood Elementary School
Observed: 11 Crossings Peak 2 hour
Criteria: 40 Crossings Peak 2 hour

PRINCE PL

JOHN ST

E ALISAL ST
stop S HEBBRON AVE
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
12 Figure 6: Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations Note: Where no engineering action is recommended in Chart 2, consider applicable education and enforcement efforts. if yes
if no
if yes
if no
if yes
if no
if yes
if no
if yes
if no
feasible
infeasible
20 pedestrians per hour
(in any two hours, not
necessarily consecutive)
cross at the location
Location along a suggested route to
school path or which connects two
pedestrian generators such as a
school, park, bus stop, or hospital
expected to generate pedestrians on a
regular basis
Nearest appropriately
marked or protected
crosswalk is at least 300
feet or more away
Insufficient need
to justify a
marked crosswalk
Low speed (posted or prima
facie 25 MPH), two-lane roadway
Pedestrians can be easily
seen from a feasible
stopping sight distance
Direct pedestrians
to the nearest
marked or
protected crosswalk
Can the sight distance
obstruction be removed or
the speed limit lowered?
Use Salinas Pedestrian
Toolbox and engineering
judgment to determine
treatment options
Direct pedestrians to the
nearest marked crosswalk
or consider installing stop
sign, signal, or grade
separation
S Hebbron Crosswalk
Counted By: Cris
Weather: Sunny
Hours: 7:00am to 6:00pm
Groups Printed- Peds

HEBBRON
From North
Start Time PEDS App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 0 0 0
07:15 AM 1 1 1
07:30 AM 5 5 5
07:45 AM 0 0 0
Total 6 6 6
08:00 AM 1 1 1
08:15 AM 0 0 0
08:30 AM 0 0 0
08:45 AM 0 0 0
Total 1 1 1
09:00 AM 0 0 0
09:15 AM 0 0 0
09:30 AM 0 0 0
09:45 AM 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
10:00 AM 0 0 0
10:15 AM 0 0 0
10:30 AM 0 0 0
10:45 AM 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
11:00 AM 0 0 0
11:15 AM 0 0 0
11:30 AM 0 0 0
11:45 AM 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
12:00 PM 0 0 0
12:15 PM 0 0 0
12:30 PM 0 0 0
12:45 PM 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
01:00 PM 0 0 0
01:15 PM 0 0 0
01:30 PM 0 0 0
01:45 PM 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
02:00 PM 0 0 0
02:15 PM 0 0 0
02:30 PM 0 0 0
02:45 PM 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
03:00 PM 4 4 4
03:15 PM 0 0 0
03:30 PM 0 0 0
03:45 PM 0 0 0
Total 4 4 4

CITY OF SALINAS

TURNING MOVEMENT PROGRAM
File Name : S Hebbron Crosswalk 05-09
Site Code : N/A
Start Date : 5/9/2024
Page No : 1
S Hebbron Crosswalk
Counted By: Cris
Weather: Sunny
Hours: 7:00am to 6:00pm
Groups Printed- Peds

HEBBRON
From North
Start Time PEDS App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 0 0 0
04:15 PM 0 0 0
04:30 PM 2 2 2
04:45 PM 1 1 1
Total 3 3 3
05:00 PM 0 0 0
05:15 PM 0 0 0
05:30 PM 0 0 0
05:45 PM 1 1 1
Total 1 1 1
Grand Total 15 15 15
Apprch % 100
Total % 100 100

CITY OF SALINAS

TURNING MOVEMENT PROGRAM
File Name : S Hebbron Crosswalk 05-09
Site Code : N/A
Start Date : 5/9/2024
Page No : 2
S Hebbron Crosswalk
Counted By: Cris
Weather: Sunny
Hours: 7:00am to 6:00pm

HEBBRON
From North
Start Time PEDS App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 07:00 AM - Peak 1 of 1

CITY OF SALINAS

TURNING MOVEMENT PROGRAM
File Name : S Hebbron Crosswalk 05-09
Site Code : N/A
Start Date : 5/9/2024
Page No : 3
2% 2% CL PL PL 60' SECTION DETAIL A SCALE: NONE EXCAVATE <E> 3" OF A.C. EXCAVATE <E> 3" OF A.B. CONSTRUCT NEW 6" HMA CLASS 2 <E> 3" AC /6-3/4" AB/ NATIVE CLAY <E> CURB AND GUTTER <E> SIDEWALK

E ALISAL ST

PRINCE PL

PRINCE PL

JOHN ST

S A L I N A
S

C A L I F O

R N I A
N

S A L I N A
S

C A L I F O

R N I A
N Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40' 80' DESIGNED BY: CAD BY: PROJECT ENGINEER / MANAGER: CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SUPERVISOR: DATE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION: REVIEWED BY: DATE CITY OF SALINAS DATE REVISION APP. PROJ. NO(S) SHEET NO. FILE NO. OF File Path: J:\p\9981 2023 Pavement Restoration Phase 1\Plans\Dist 02\S Hebbron.dwg Plot By: VICTORIA GUTIERREZ
Plot Date: 4/12/2024 10:15 AM REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER STA TE OF CA LIFORNIA ADRIANA ROBLES C IV I L NO. 69142 ADRIANA ROBLES, P.E. CITY ENGINEER DAVID T. JACOBS, P.E., L.S. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR VICTORIA G. VICTORIA G. R. OMICTIN 2024 PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS S. HEBBRON AVE. 9981 1 8258 4 S HEBBRON AVE CCO No.1 S HEBBRON AVE CCO No.1 City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-459, Version: 1
Extended Subscription Term with Governmentjobs.com dba NEOGOV Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager and Purchasing Agent to approve the Governmentjobs.com, Inc., dba NEOGOV subscription term and extending the renewal period through October 29, 2025, for an amount not to exceed $48,670.38.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
DEPARTMENT: HUMAN RESOURCES
FROM: MARINA HORTA-GALLEGOS, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
TITLE: EXTENDED SUBSCRIPTION TERM WITH GOVERNMENTJOBS.COM

DBA NEOGOV HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

SOFTWARE
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution delegating authority to the City Manager and Purchasing Agent to approve the Governmentjobs.com, Inc., dba NEOGOV subscription term and extending the renewal period through October 29, 2025, for an amount not to exceed $48,670.38.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Salinas maintains various software programs utilized throughout the organization. The NEOGOV Software program has been successfully used in Human Resources for many years, and it is now up for renewal. Continuation of this program is important for many of the critical functions of the Human Resources Department to include recruitment and personnel online performance evaluations which the Department will be launching in the coming weeks.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Salinas utilizes the NEOGOV Software program for many functions within Human Resources. The program assists in applicant tracking and servicing during the application process, as a tool for perspective new employees, and will soon include a performance module for assisting in online performance evaluation. The program is used as an applicant tracking system for every City Department during the recruitment phase.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

Page | 2
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This request supports City Council’s Strategic Goals and Strategies of Effective and Culturally Responsive Government, by ensuring that the NEOGOV software program can assist in the delivery of Human Resources programs for applicants and employees.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Human Resources works with all City Departments in utilizing and improving this software program.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Funding is available and appropriated in 1000.16.1140.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. NEOGOV Invoice
Page | 3

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

OF THE SUBSCRIPTION FEE FOR THE NEOGOV SOFTWARE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City desires to renew and maintain the NEOGOV Software program; and WHEREAS, NEOGOV will provide the Human Resources Management Software for the City of Salinas.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby delegates authority to the City Manager and Purchasing Agent to renew the subscription fee for the NEOGOV Software program through October 29, 2025, in an amount not to exceed $48,670.38.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of August 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN: APPROVED:
____________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Invoice #INV-44085
From
Governmentjobs.com, Inc. DBA NEOGOV
2120 Park Pl,
Suite 100
El Segundo, CA 90245
Invoice Summary
Invoice Number INV-44085
Date 09/30/2024
Terms Net 30
Due Date 10/30/2024
Amount Due (USD) $ 48,670.38
Bill To
Salinas, City of (CA)
200 Lincoln Ave.

Salinas, CA 93901-2639
United States
Item / Description Total
Insight
This is your subscription fee for Insight for the term starting 10/30/2024 and ending 10/29/2025. 19,730.80
Employee Import into PE/ON (SFTP)
This is your subscription fee for Employee Import into PE/ON (SFTP) for the term starting 10/30/2024 and ending 10/29/2025.
1,650.00
Position Control Integration
This is your subscription fee for Position Control Integration for the term starting 10/30/2024 and ending 10/29/2025.
1,597.50
Governmentjobs.com
This is your subscription fee for Governmentjobs.com for the term starting 10/30/2024 and ending 10/29/2025.
3,239.75
Perform
This is your subscription fee for Perform for the term starting 10/30/2024 and ending 10/29/2025. 22,452.33
Amount Due (USD) $ 48,670.38
Thank you for your business!
For questions, or pay by credit card, please reply to this email or reach out to [email protected]. For questions on a renewals invoice, please reach out to [email protected].

Please make checks payable to:

Governmentjobs.com, Inc
DEPT LA 25067
Pasadena, CA 91185-5067
For Payments by Wire:

Silicon Valley Bank
Account #: 3302022848
Account Name: Governmentjobs.com, Inc.

Bank Routing No.: 121140399
Swift Code: SVBUS6SIBO
For a copy of our W9, please click on "Download W9" above.

Invoice powered by Maxio, LLC. Subscription Management for B2B SaaS City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-461, Version: 1
California Water Service Water Conservation Rebate Program Award and Equipment Purchase Approve a Resolution accepting the California Water Service Water Conservation Rebate Program award in the amount of $124,965.94; and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to complete the direct purchase of a Direct Recirculating Apparatus Firefighter Training & Sustainability (DRAFTS) unit from Pump Pods USA, in an amount not to exceed $124,965.94.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
DEPARTMENT: FIRE DEPARTMENT
FROM: SAMUEL KLEMEK, FIRE CHIEF
TITLE: ACCEPTANCE OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER

CONSERVATION REBATE PROGRAM AWARD FOR THE

PURCHASE OF A DRAFTS UNIT
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution:

1. Accepting the California Water Service Water Conservation Rebate Program award in the amount of $124,965.94; and

2. Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to complete the direct purchase of a Direct Recirculating Apparatus Firefighter Training & Sustainability (DRAFTS) unit from Pump Pods USA, in an amount not to exceed $124,965.94.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The California Water Service Conservation works proactively with fire departments throughout its service areas to provide grants that assist firefighters with the tools they need for training and firefighting, while also keeping water-wise practices at the forefront. The Salinas Fire Department applied for the program and was awarded the total cost to purchase a unit to capture and re-use millions of gallons of water used for pump operator training. The unit would allow the SFD to provide members with realistic, hose/nozzle training and pump operator training while saving approximately 5,830,500 gallons/year.

BACKGROUND:

Since 2022, the Salinas Fire Department has been diligently working towards recruitment and training efforts, increasing the size of its recruit academies and required training hours. During the initial training, recruits are required to complete a week-long Pump Operator training and 30 additional pump evolutions. Additionally, line personnel complete 16 hours of training every month, with most drills involving flowing water. The standard pump evolution/wet drill includes securing a water supply, stretching attack lines, and flowing water into the tower or an open field.

These drills flow anywhere from 150 to 1500 gallons per minute and can last several minutes to Page | 2
several hours. While these drills use a significant amount of water, they are the only method available to provide realistic training for firefighters.

The Salinas Fire Department is extremely cognizant of water's value and does everything possible to minimize usage. During pump operator training, these drills are conducted in an open field where the water can seep back into the ground. However, many drills need to occur at the drill tower, resulting in millions of gallons wasted.

The Department requested Cal Water's assistance in purchasing a DRAFTS unit. This unit will allow the department to provide the necessary training to our members while saving millions of gallons of water each year. The DRAFTS unit from PumpPods USA would enable us to offer realistic hose/nozzle and pump operator training. This unit would be housed at our Training Station #3, located at 827 Abbott Pl, Salinas, CA. PumpPods USA is the sole manufacturer of this equipment.

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:

Adoption of this resolution supports the City Council’s Strategic Goal of Public Safety.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Salinas Fire Department will need the assistance of the Finance department to appropriately document the award budget and assist with the purchasing process.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The following table identifies the fund and appropriation amount of the award.

Fund/
Appropriation
Appropriation
Name
Total
Appropriation
Amount for
recommenda
tion
FY 24-25 Operating
Budget Page (online)
Last Budget Action
(Date/Resolution)
3117.45.7106 Other
Reimbursements –
Capital Outlays
Equipment
$124,965.94
ATTACHMENTS:

Award Letter
DRAFTS unit Quote
Resolution
Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE CALIFORNIA WATER

SERVICE AWARD FOR THE PURCHASE OF A DRAFTS UNIT AND AUTHORIZING

THE PURCHASE OF FIREFIGHTER APPARATUS
WHEREAS, the California Water Service works proactively with fire departments throughout its service areas to provide grants that assist firefighters with the tools they need for training and firefighting, while also keeping water-wise practices at the forefront; and WHEREAS, the Salinas Fire Department applied for the California Water Service Water Conservation Rebate Program and was awarded the total cost of $124,965.94 to purchase a Direct Recirculating Apparatus Firefighter Training & Sustainability (DRAFTS) unit; and WHEREAS, the DRAFTS unit will allow the Salinas Fire Department to capture and re-use millions of gallons of water used for pump operator training, saving approximately 5,830,500 gallons per year; and
WHEREAS, the Salinas Fire Department is extremely cognizant of water's value and does everything possible to minimize usage, conducting many drills in an open field where the water can seep back into the ground; and
WHEREAS, the purchase of the DRAFTS unit from PumpPods USA, the sole manufacturer of this equipment, will be housed at Training Station #3, located at 827 Abbott Pl, Salinas, CA, enabling the Salinas Fire Department to provide realistic hose/nozzle and pump operator training while conserving water;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council:

1. Accepts the California Water Service Water Conservation Rebate Program award in the amount of $124,965.94; and

2. Authorizes the Purchasing Agent to complete the direct purchase of a Direct Recirculating Apparatus Firefighter Training & Sustainability (DRAFTS) unit from PumpPods USA, in an amount not to exceed $124,965.94.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of August 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

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

To Whom in May Concern,
The Salinas Fire Department consists of 97 sworn members that serve an area of approximately 23 square miles with a population exceeding 163,000 persons. Salinas Fire is an all-hazards municipal fire department that deploys its personnel and apparatus from six fire stations located throughout the city. 6 Engines and 2 Ladder trucks responded to a total of 17,294 calls for service.

In 2022, the Training Division conducted a Recruit Academy comprising of 15 Recruits and in 2023, another Academy was completed comprising 5 Recruits. In 2024 we will be conducting another Recruit academy comprising 17 more Recruits. During a recruits initial training, they are required to complete a week-long Pump Operator training and 30 additional pump evolutions. In addition, our line personnel complete 16 hours of training every month and most of these drills include flowing water. Our standard pump evolution/wet drill includes securing a water supply, stretching attack lines, and flowing water into our tower or an open field. These drills flow anywhere from 150 gallons per minute up to 1500 gallons per minute and can take several minutes up to several hours. While these drills use an extreme amount of water it is the only method, we have to provide realistic training for our Firefighters.

Our department is extremely cognizant of water s value and do everything we can to minimize our usage. During pump operator training, we conduct these drills in an open field where the water is able to seep back into the ground but a lot of drills need to occur at our drill tower which results in millions of gallons wasted.

We are requesting Cal Waters assistance in the purchase of a DRAFTS unit. This unit will allow us to provide the needed training to our members, while saving millions of gallons of water a year.

We are requesting Cal Water s assistance with the purchase of a DRAFTS Unit from Pump Pods. This system would allow us to provide our members with realistic, hose/nozzle training and pump operator training. This unit would be housed at our training station #3, located at 827 Abbott Pl, Salinas CA. Recently, we were able to use a local junior colleges trailer and out instructors were extremely impressed with its functionality, build design, and capabilities. We appreciate your support and assistance.

Chris Knapp
Division Chief/Fire Marshal

www.PumpPodUSA.com
July 30, 2024
Salinas Fire Department Quote #: 24-0730SFDMDU-01
Mobile DRAFTS UNIT Quote
Dear Battalion Chief Kris Knapp,
Thank you for your interest in our PumpPodUSA DRAFTS UNITS. We are pleased to present the following information per your request for a Mobile DRAFTS Unit (exceeds 2,100 USG). The PumpPodUSA - Direct Recirculating Apparatus Firefighting Training & Sustainability (DRAFTS) Unit apparatus is specifically designed to be the ultimate training tool to develop, maintain and test your Engineers and Firefighters. This Unit will enhance the safety, training, and practice for candidates specifically while providing needed additional training opportunities to ensure that your department has the most prepared and qualified workforce today.

The DRAFTS Unit will provide and allow your department to train with Full Flow Water for your Firefighters and Engineers. When deployed out into the Battalions the Engine Companies can train WITHOUT having to call “Out of Service” thus significantly increasing the hours of training but reducing time and costs related to these exercises.

Another benefit to the DRAFTS Units is that they are self-contained and re-circulate the water required for a wide variety of training evolutions as well as a host of NFPA testing requirements and water conservation mandated compliance.

Each DRAFTS Unit will allow approximately (2,100 USG) amount of water to be pump continually, literally saving millions of gallons each year using the DRAFTS Units innovative design and construction.

General Construction Notes:
 This apparatus is constructed and made from Intermodal Shipping Containers and are reinforced in a variety of ways in order to provide long term reliability and durable service.  A custom bulkhead is constructed and welded into the container. This bulkhead is placed back from the access doors. The design also allows a safe flat deck to safely access to the nozzle mounting system. This system is customizable to suit your Training & Testing needs. variety of straight nozzle styles as well as custom additions.
 The DRAFTS UNIT is fitted with Drafting and Pressure Pipes, NH Fittings of various sizes ranging from:
1 1/2” - 6” and is available in several configurations based on your department needs.  The deflector shield is mounted to a frame at an angle to divert the incoming stream downward into the reservoir. The optional hanging targets on the deflector shield are to help train nozzle operators.  All Apparatus will be coated internally with Rhino protective coatings for containment and durability.  Photographs and illustrations are included on the following pages to help illustrate the design items mentioned herein.
 10 Year Limited Warranty
Thank you again for your interest, after your review please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,
Bill Ward
Executive Director Cell: (949)246 6999 Email: [email protected]

www.PumpPodUSA.com
Mobile DRAFTS Unit on 24’ Trailer Capacity: 2,100 Gallons Approx. Gross Weight (Empty): 9,300 lbs. Example: How Artwork has been applied on previous Units.

www.PumpPodUSA.com

DIRECT RECIRUCLING APPARATUS FIREFIGHTER

TRAINING & SUSTAINABILITY UNIT
Rear Bulkhead Wall & Interior Features:
1 Galvanized Diverter Screen mounted to Aluminum Frame (Optional Target can be mounted) 1 Folding Aluminum Step on outside (Ladder step welded to Inside of Bulkhead Wall) 6 Welded Fire Hose & Nozzle Plates in 2.5” Ss Nipples Capped with 2.5” NH Fittings (Aluminum) 1 200 PSI Pressure Relief Valve for FDC Plumbing (Red)
1 1 ½” Valve, the same as if they were opening of Interior Standpipe on2 nd or 3rd floor (Red)
(Connected to FDC Siamese with In-line 900 Fittings to provide for the equivalent of 150’of resistance/ friction loss)

www.PumpPodUSA.com
Front:
1 Safety Rail with folding Aluminum Step at front of Deck 1 6” Horizontal Draft Port (Blue) with Butterfly Valve and 6” FNH Double Swivel Fitting (Alum.) 1 6” Vertical Riser Draft Training Riser per our discussion, (for a portion of annual pump testing) 1 2 ½” Valve with NH fitting - Make-up Water (using an Auto-Fill with Float) - Right side 1 Powder Coated Blue Parts Box
1 12 Volt Electromechanical Water Meter with Totalizer with 12 Battery & Conditioner w/ Plugin. 1 Portable Hydrant with Stainless Steel deck plate to secure to unit to the deck during transport. 1 (3) Port FDC with 2 ½”Clappered Snoots w/ working 3rd Story Stand pipe valve with 200 PSI PRV. (Plumbed to series of 90 degree fittings Providing for 150’ of Line Restriction / friction loss.

www.PumpPodUSA.com
Standard Items & Features Included:
1 Portable Wet Barrel (DB) Customized Hydrant 6” Supply (4”, 4 ½” or 5” reducer NH Fitting) in 2 or 3 Ports (3) Port FDC Connections – Plumbed with (3) 2 ½” Brass Clappered Snoots Non-skid flooring welded on Rear deck level with Pod Floor with aluminum heavy duty non-skid decking.

Non-skid flooring welded on Front End Deck with expanded & raised Galvanized steel.

Powder Coated Front End Safety Rail with Aluminum Folding Step Rear Stairs – Folding Aluminum with Web Strap Set for transport. Upper Handles coated with Rhino Liner.

Powder Coated Rear Safety Railing -
Aluminum Speed Rail Hose Guides on each side of Stairs (Protects Hoses & keeps hose off Stairs for Safety) 3” Floor Drain – Knife dump valve with Cam Fitting and 25’ of Lay Flat Drain Hose Interior of Apparatus sprayed with watertight Rhino Liner protective coating for containment and durability.

Multi-layer Galvanized Expanded Steel Deflector Screen secured to Aluminum Frame.

Exterior Powder Coated Panel Siding with aluminum diamond plate trim. Artwork / Signage using a UV Wrap.

All Ball Valve Handles coated with Black Rhino Liner protective coating Custom Heavy-Duty dual axle Trailer for Pump-Pod DRAFTS Unit (Painted Black) Optional Items & Features
5’ x 5’ Galvanized Roof Target
Deflector Screen Target(s) - Bolted Swing Plates coated with Yellow Rhino Liner “type coating” Additional - Portable Wet Barrel Customized Jones Hydrant (DB 4” x 2 1/2”, DB 4” x 2 ½” x 2 ½”) Pump Testing Manifold (5) 3” Clappered Snoots for up to 2,000 GPM Fire Hose Roller (Inserted when needed into Hitch Receiver – welded on either side of Rear Portion of Trailer Warranty
15 Year Limited Warranty (See Warranty Document)
Repairs and Service of Units
Any Warranted Repairs or Non-Preventive Maintenance Service items covered by the warranty, will be performed by PumpPodUSA personnel or designated vendor. Written Notice with photographs documenting the Repair / Service Item in question shall be sent to PumpPodUSA in a timely manner from the Fire Department Fleet Services. Once PumpPodUSA reviews the issue they will decide on the course of action:

1. Local Vendor - Dispatched by PumpPodUSA… (If Item is not completed by Vendor - Refer to Option #2)

2. PumpPodUSA personnel will be dispatched to inspect and perform Repairs or Service on-site.

3. If Repair & Service Item(s) can’t be completed on-site the Unit will be transported to the factory at the manufactures time and expense. Once Repair / Service are completed it will be returned back to Fire Department at manufactures expense.

4. Fire Department Fleet representative will confirm Item in question was completed to Departments satisfaction must be signed off at time of delivery.

www.PumpPodUSA.com
Mobile DRAFTS Unit Quote July 30, 2024

Salinas Fire Department Quote #: 24-0730SFDMDU-01
Pump-Pod / DRAFTS Unit Specifications: Descriptions Unit Price:
(1) Mobile –
Approx. 2,100 Gallons
See the Following List:

Mobile Base Model
Mobile DRAFTS Unit
(see specifications above)
$104,575.00
Stenciling & Artwork Signage
Wrap
Seals, Shields & Logos -
Digital files provided by FD
Wrap Designed, Printed and Applied
by PPUSA
Included
Diffuser Screen Expanded Stainless Steel Screen Secured to Aluminum Frame Included Bulkhead Inside Rear Door (1) Step Outside of Bulkhead (1) Step on Inside of Bulkhead Included Welded to Atop of Bulkhead (6) – 2.5” Ss Nozzle Tubes 2.5” NH Fittings on each Nozzle Tubes Included Front - Right Hand Side (1) x 2.5” standard valve w/
female NH
Engine Pump Re-Circulation &
Quick-Fill Connection
Included
6” Butterfly Valve on Primary
Horizontal Drafting Connection
6” FNPT to 6” FNH Dbl. Swivel Fitting
W /6” MNST x 4.5” FNh Swivel Reducer
Included
On vertical on Draft Riser –
Mat. Sched. 80 PVC
6” FNPT to 6” MNH Fitting
Convert from Pipe to Fire Hose Threads
1” Bleeder Valve on Riser
Included
Front - Left Hand Side (1) x 1.5” standard valve w/
auto-refill float inside
Make-up Water

1.5”FNPT x 1.5” MNH Fitting
Included
3 Port FDC 4” x with (3) 2.5”
Brass Clappered Snoots with
Pressure Relief Valve
Plumbed to fittings inside providing
150’ of Line Restriction & Friction loss
and simulated Standpipe Hydrant
Included
Flexible Suction Hoses 2- 6” Hoses 10’ in Length 6” Diameter with NH Threaded Fittings Included 1 Custom Portable Hydrant DB 4 ½” x 2 ½” x 2 ½” 6” Intake reduced to 4 1/2” FNH Swivel Included Electro-Mech. Water Meter Electro-Mech. Water Meter 12 Volt Battery with Conditioner Included Roof Target 5’ x 5’ Galvanized Inset into Roof top for Drainage Inset into Roof to act like funnel Included Swinging Nozzle Flow Targets Powder coated Stainless Steel Mounted to Diffuser Screen Included Tool/ Parts Box Blue Powder coat Included
Base Model Total: $104,575.00
Accessories / Options:

Pump Test Assembly: Pump Test Manifold & Assembly $3,620.00 Addl. Portable Hydrant: 3 Port Portable Hydrant $4,680.00 Add-on & Options Sub-Total: $8,300.00
Sub-Total before Sales Tax: $112,875.00
Sales Tax: Zip Code: 93901 9.25 % Sales Tax $10,440.94
Total after Sales Tax: $123,315.94
On-Site Training & Delivery: Provided by PumpPodUSA Training & Delivery $1,650.00 Grand Total: $124,965.94
Payment Installments: Please make the checks payable to:
$50,000 at time of issued Purchase Order PumpPodUSA
$74,965.94 due upon Delivery, Acceptance & Training 3850 Royal Ave., Suite B Simi Valley – CA – 93063
Quote Valid for 30 days: due to volatile Steel & Raw Materials Costs City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-463, Version: 1
Microsoft Office 365 Government G3 License Renewal
Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager and Purchasing Agent to complete the purchase of Microsoft Office 365 Government G3 license renewal from Dell, LP., in an amount not to exceed $289,163.76.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
DEPARTMENT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
FROM: SELINA ANDREWS, ACTING FINANCE DIRECTOR
BY: CARLOS ORTEGA, IT DIVISION MANAGER
TITLE: MICROSOFT OFFICE 365 GOVERNMENT G3 LICENSE

RENEWAL
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager and Purchasing Agent to complete the purchase of Microsoft Office 365 Government G3 license renewal from Dell, LP., in an amount not to exceed $289,163.76.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Approval of the Resolution will allow the City to continue to provide, maintain, and support various technology programs and platforms for City departments. This renewal is year two (2) of a three (3) year agreement with Dell, LP. Microsoft 365 Government G3 is for government agencies like the City that use Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, and other desktop applications. The software licenses provide City staff access to required applications such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint, SharePoint, and Outlook email via the cloud and/or desktop environments.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Salinas has been using Microsoft 365 Government G3 since 2011. Prior to 2011 the City was using Microsoft 365 Enterprise. The change to Microsoft 365 Government G3 was more cost effective and offered government security and compliance capability. The Microsoft Enterprise Licensing Agreement was negotiated by the County of Riverside and Dell, L.P., as part of a competitive bidding process. Many organizations in the State of California have referenced the agreement to secure the best pricing option available. The enterprise agreement allows the City to pay a flat annual fee and subscribe to the needed software and licensing platforms without paying additional fees for releases and updates. The City currently uses Microsoft 365 Government G3 software for its day-to-day operations to meet security requirements and best practices.

Included in Microsoft 365 Government G3 are the core applications including Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, SharePoint, and Outlook email via the cloud and/or desktop environments.

Microsoft Word is used to create documents including memos, reports, internal and public Page | 2
correspondence. Excel is used to create spreadsheets to track budgets, inventory, and other data relevant to City business. PowerPoint is used for creating visual presentations. Additionally, SharePoint is one of the main platforms used to create, collaborate, share, and manage files and workflows within the City environment.

Maintaining software licenses is necessary for the maintenance and operations of multiple staff activities and collaboration tools. The current resolution will authorize the continuation of maintaining core Microsoft applications in cloud and virtual desktop environments.

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 renewal of Microsoft 365 and license supports the City Council’s Goal of Effective and Culturally Responsive Government by ensuring that the information systems can support city programs, projects can City services for the community.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This staff report has been coordinated with City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, Public Works, Community Development, Library & Community Services, Human Resources, Police, and Fire.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There are sufficient funds in the budget as identified in the following table.

Fund /
Appropriation
Appropriation
Name
Total
Appropriation
Amount for
recommendation
FY 24-25 Operating
Budget Page*
Last Budget Action
(Date, Resolution)
1000.20.2033 Outside servicesSoftware$888,834.00 $289,163.76 123 6/11/24, 22979 * The FY 24-25 Adopted Budget was adopted on June 11, 2024.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Dell, LP., Quote

3. Riverside County MSFT EA Amendment
Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND PURCHASING AGENT TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF MICROSOFT OFFICE 365
GOVERNMENT G3 LICENSE RENEWAL FROM DELL, LP., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $289,163.76
WHEREAS, the City desires to renew and maintain its Microsoft 365 Government G3 licensing; and
WHEREAS, having an active Microsoft 365 Government G3 license will ensure access to core Microsoft 365 applications for the City of Salinas.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Salinas Municipal Code section 12-27 the Salinas City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager and Purchasing Agent to complete the purchase of Microsoft Government G3 licensing from Dell LP., in an amount not to exceed $289,163.76.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of August, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
_______________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
QUOTE Sam Andrews
[email protected]
512.720-4469
Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA)#: 5950506 Date of Issue: 8/1/2024 Customer: City of Salinas Quote Expires: 9/1/2024
Quote Number: EA-SALINASY2
M365 G3 Unified FUSL GCC Sub Per User AAD-34704 735 12 $31.50 $277,830.00 M365 F3 Unified GCC Sub Per User AAD-63092 20 12 $6.80 $1,632.00 M365 F1 GCC Sub Per User 3EB-00001 20 12 $1.91 $458.40
M365 F3 Unified GCC SU M365 F1 Sub Per User AAH-52837 10 12 $4.89 $586.80 Entra ID P2 Gov SU Entra ID P1 Per User MQN-00002 10 12 $2.23 $267.60 Exchange Online Kiosk GCC Sub Per User 3PS-00001 8 12 $1.75 $168.00 Power BI Pro GCC Sub Per User DDJ-00001 1 12 $7.44 $89.28 Project P3 GCC Sub Per User 7MS-00001 9 12 $22.34 $2,412.72 Project P5 GCC Sub Per User 7VX-00001 10 12 $40.96 $4,915.20 Visio P2 GCC Sub Per User P3U-00001 4 12 $11.17 $536.16 Teams AC with Dial Out US/CA GCC Sub Add-on NYH-00001 750 12 $0.00 $0.00 Azure Active Directory Premium P2 GCC SU AADP P1 Per User MQN-00002 10 12 $2.23 $267.60 AzureprepaymentG ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL Commit Provision J5U-00004 1 12 $0.00 $0.00 Year 2 Payment, due Sept 2024 $289,163.76
Notes:

Pricing/contract for this quote are leveraging the Riverside County / Dell Total Annual Payment Yr 2 $289,163.76 Agreement# PSA-0001524 (Microsoft/Riverside County Agreement# (9/1/2024 to 8/31/2025) 8084445)
Grand Total $289,163.76
Year 2 Payment

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-466, Version: 1
Temporary Pond 3 Diversion Agreement
Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign a letter of agreement for the temporary diversion of industrial wastewater from the City’s Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility using the pond 3 pump station to M1W.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, DIRECTOR
TITLE: TEMPORARY POND 3 DIVERSION AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign a letter of agreement for the temporary diversion of industrial wastewater from the City’s Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility using the pond 3 pump station to M1W.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The ponds at the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWTF) have reduced percolation and are coming close to the freeboard limits in the discharge permit. To maintain freeboard, the City has requested Monterey One Water (M1W) to take water using the pond 3 pump station. On August 5, 2024, a letter of agreement was received from M1W to take water. It is estimated the cost of diverting and treating the water is going to range between $110,000 and $200,000 depending on the amount of water diverted.

BACKGROUND:

The IWTF site was built in 1943 to serve as a vegetable wastewater treatment processing facility which initially consisted of a series of percolation ponds. The facility has been expanded over the years to include additional percolation ponds, an aeration lagoon, and drying beds. Currently, it spans approximately 280 acres with a permitted capacity of 4 million gallons per day (mgd).

The IWTF operates under a General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) (Order No. R3‐2004‐ 0066) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The IWTF is specifically prohibited from discharging effluent to the Salinas River.

Currently, 23 industrial users contribute wastewater flow to the IWTF (the IWTF is located south of the City next to the Salinas River). These industrial users are primarily performing food processing, which includes vegetable packaging, ice manufacturing and produce refrigeration.

Industrial wastewater flows vary seasonally. Peak flow within the system occurs during the summer months, which coincides with the peak harvesting season. Flows are lower in the winter, which coincides with decreased processing due to lower harvests.

Page | 2
A collaborative effort between the City and Monterey One Water (M1W) resulted in the installation of permanent facilities in 2016 to divert the industrial wastewater directly to the M1W Regional Treatment Plant (RTP). Further collaboration resulted in a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant from the State Water Resources Control Board. The grant allowed construction of the stormwater diversion facilities and a pump station to convey both wastewater and stormwater to the RTP after treatment through the IWTF. These improvements were completed in 2020.

Collectively, these improvements allow the system to transfer stormwater and industrial wastewater to the RTP for reuse and recycling.

The IWTF was inundated by the Salinas River in March 2023. The inundation deposited silt in the percolation ponds and reduced their percolation capacity. The reduced percolation has staff watching the freeboard 1(maintaining freeboard is a condition of the WDR) on the ponds. To maintain freeboard RWQCB gave permission to use the rapid infiltration beds from July 24 to August 2, 2024.

In the past M1W has worked with the City to temporarily accept industrial wastewater to lower water levels at the IWTF due to operational concerns regarding regulatory requirements. This has occurred periodically over the last few years with a letter of agreement and terms executed each time. Each time a request has been made the terms of the agreement include reimbursement of costs incurred by M1W in accepting and treating these flows:
• January 2023: In response to severe weather and flooding of the ponds • March 13, 2023 – May 1, 2023: Flooding shutdown use of the IWTF • February 16, 2024 – April 21, 2024: In response to severe weather and freeboard concerns with the ponds
At the July 29, 2024, M1W Board of Director’s meeting, the Board approved M1W taking the water from pond 3. The Board stipulated that the acceptance and treatment of the water would be paid by the City unless another user can use the water, then the user of the water would pay for the treatment.

The City received a letter on August 5, 2024, outlining the conditions of M1W taking the water which include:
a. Pro-Rated Annual Fixed Costs: Pond 3 Pump Station: $203,352 total annual Fixed Cost/ 365-a day (Pro-rated amount - $557.12/day).
b. Variable Treatment Rate at Regional Treatment Plant: For Pond 3 water taken to RTP using Pond 3 Pump Station: $417.32 per MG (or $136/AF). M1W will measure the amount of water diverted to account for the volumetric rate charge. c. Staff and Operational Costs Associated with Diversion: Costs associated with actual diversion from the Pond Three Pump Station. M1W’s costs associated with operating the diversion is $1,000 per week ($1,000 / 7 days = $142.85/day)

1 Freeboard is the distance from the surface of the water in the pond to the top of the pond levees.

Page | 3
d. Standard Overhead Rate: 20% of Variable Treatment Rate and Staff and Operational Costs Associated with Diversion. The overhead rate is calculated for the combined daily rate of operational costs ($142.85 * 20% = $28.57).

M1W is going to its Board on August 26, 2024, to increase the variable treatment rate from $136/AF to $419.59/AF. This increase will push the total cost of the diversion above the approval authority of the City Manager.

It is important to point out that this is a temporary 90-day agreement to provide the capacity needed for the short-term. This period will allow Staff to bring a discussion to the Council on the development of a long-term water strategy and plan for the City.

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 project addresses the current City Council’s Goals of “Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability” and “Effective and Culturally Responsive Government.” DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Public Works Department is collaborating with Legal and Administration Departments.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Funding is available and appropriated in the Industrial Waste Appropriation 6200.50.5441.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
M1W letter of Agreement
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A LETTER OF

AGREEMENT FOR THE TEMPORARY DIVERSION OF INDUSTRIAL

WASTEWATER FROM THE INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY TO M1W USING THE POND 3 PUMP STATION
WHEREAS, the ponds at the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWTF) have reduced percolation and are coming close to the freeboard limits; and WHEREAS, in order to maintain freeboard, the City requested M1W take water from pond 3 using the pond 3 pump station; and
WHEREAS, the City received a letter of agreement for temporary diversion of industrial wastewater from M1W on August 5, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the expected cost to M1W for accepting and treatment of the water from pond 3 is estimated to be between $110,000 and $200,000.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to sign the letter of agreement with W1W for the temporary diversion of industrial wastewater from the IWTF to M1W.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of August 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
August 5, 2024
City of Salinas
ATTN: Rene Mendez, City Manager
200 Lincoln Ave.

Salinas, CA 93901
SUBJECT: Letter of Agreement for Temporary Diversion of Industrial Wastewater Effluent from Monterey One Water’s Pond 3 Pump Station
Dear Mr. Mendez,
This letter agreement confirms the City of Salinas (City) has requested Monterey One Water (M1W) accept diversions of industrial wastewater effluent from the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWTF”), specifically Pond 3 (“Pond 3 Water”) via the Pond 3 Pump Station for conveyance to and treatment at the Regional Treatment Plant (“RTP”). The request is due to the IWTF being close to permitted freeboard requirements. The effective date for M1W starting the diversions will be the day following receipt of a signed version of this letter agreement from the City.

Pursuant to the terms of this letter agreement, M1W will accept industrial wastewater effluent diversionsfrom the IWTF into the Pond 3 Pump Station for treatment at the RTP for a period of up to 90 consecutive days from the effective date of this letter agreement. All the diverted water shall meet the water quality parameters established by M1W (Total Suspended Solids, Conductivity, and pH) and the volume of water diverted from Pond 3 does not create other process issues at the Regional Treatment Plant.

M1W will make all operational decisions on how and when diversions can take place at Pond 3 Pump Station.

Depending upon the water quality parameters, diversion volumes will start at 1 MGD to determine if any deleterious effects are noticed at the RTP. Amounts could be increased if no adverse effects are noticed at RTP.

This diversion duration will be subject to interruption due to water quality abnormalities. M1W shall have the right to terminate this agreement and/or not accept water which does not meet the water quality parameters established by M1W (Total Suspended Solids, Conductivity, and pH) or which create treatment process issues at the RTP.

After the water has been diverted from Pond 3 and treated at the RTP, M1W, in its sole discretion, may use the treated Pond 3 water (1) to augment agricultural irrigation supply for CSIP, if requested by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency; (2) for the Pure Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (“PWM”); or (3) in the event the treated Pond 3 water is not needed for CSIP or PWM, M1W may divert the treated water to the Ocean Outfall.

The Parties agree that the costs for diversion and treatment of the Pond 3 Water included the following:
a. Pro-Rated Annual Fixed Costs: Pond 3 Pump Station: $203,352 total annual Fixed Cost/ 365-a day (Pro-rated amount - $557.12/day).
b. Variable Treatment Rate at Regional Treatment Plant: For Pond 3 water taken to RTP using Pond 3 Pump Station: $417.32 per MG (or $136/AF). M1W will measure the amount of water diverted to account for the volumetric rate charge.

Rene Mendez, City Manager, City of Salinas
August 5, 2024

Page 2 of 2 ends
← All documents from this meeting