Agenda Packet — Salinas City Council, August 20, 2024 (part 1 of 5)

Tuesday, August 20, 2024
4:00 PM
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas, CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org

SALINAS ROTUNDA
City Council
Mayor Kimbley Craig
Councilmembers:

Carla Viviana González, District 1 - Tony Barrera, District 2 Jesus Valenzuela, District 3 - Orlando Osornio, District 4 Andrew Sandoval, District 5 - Anthony Rocha, District 6 Rene Mendez, City Manager
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
City Clerk’s Office: (831) 758-7381
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final August 20, 2024

ZOOM WEBINAR PARTICIPATION
JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81100973227
To participate telephonically, call any number below:
+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) +1 669 444 9171 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 719 359 4580 US +1 253 205 0468 US +1 689 278 1000 US +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 646 931 3860 US Webinar ID: 811 0097 3227
If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES
If you wish to make a general public comment or comment on a specific agenda item, you are encouraged to attend the City Council meeting in person. Public comment may also be submitted via email at [email protected] and will be entered into the record.

PUBLIC COMMENT TIME RESTRICTIONS
Public comments generally are limited to two minutes per speaker; the Mayor may further limit the time for public comments depending on the agenda schedule.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
Receive public communications on items that are not on the agenda and that are in the City of Salinas’ subject matter jurisdiction. Comments on Consent, Consideration, and Closed session items should be held until the items are reached. The public may request that the legislative body consider adding an item for consideration on a future agenda. The public may comment on scheduled agenda items, including closed session items, as they are considered.

PRESENTATION
Councilmember comments on presentations are generally limited to three minutes.

ICMA Turner Scholars Youth Summer Internship Program

CONSIDERATION
City of Salinas Page 2 Printed on 8/16/2024
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final August 20, 2024
ID#24-462 2024 Fireworks Enforcement After-Action Report Recommendation: Receive and accept the 2024 Fireworks Enforcement After-Action Report presented by the Salinas Fire and Police Department.

ID#24-447 2024-2025 Prioritization of Traffic Calming Projects Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving the proposed neighborhood traffic calming prioritization list for Fiscal Year 2024-2025.

ID#24-473 Potential Additional FY 24-25 Community Sponsorship Funding Recommendation: Discuss and provide direction on the potential allocation of an additional $50,000 towards the FY 24-25 Community Sponsorship Program.

CONSENT AGENDA
All matters listed under Consent Agenda may be enacted by one motion unless a member of the Council or the public requests discussion or a separate vote.

ID#24-479 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve minutes of August 6, 2024.

ID#24-477 Financial Claims
Recommendation: Approve financial claims report.

ID#24-263 2024 California International Airshow Permit
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to execute an Airport Use Permit for the 2024 California International Airshow, to be conducted by the Monterey County Airshow Association, Incorporated at the Salinas Municipal Airport, in accordance with the terms of said permit.

ID#24-324 Rejection of Proposals for Demolition of the Old Police Department Building Recommendation: Approve a Resolution rejecting all proposals received for Engineering and Construction Management Services for the Demolition of the Old Police Department Building.

ID#24-383 Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Harris and Associates for the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements, CIP 9009
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving Amendment No. 2 to amend and restate the Professional Services Agreement with Harris and Associates for the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements project to increase the schedule of the agreement and to increase the total compensation by $29,720 for a total compensation of $393,538.

ID#24-393 Agreements for Regular Clean Up of Alisal Commercial Corridors for Fiscal Year 2024-2025
City of Salinas Page 3 Printed on 8/16/2024
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final August 20, 2024
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a service agreement for regular cleanup of the Alisal commercial corridors for Fiscal Year 2024-25 in an amount not to exceed $190,030 with Downtown Streets and enter into a License Agreement to use a portion of the property at 282 East Alisal Street in support of the commercial corridor regular cleanup services; and execute a service agreement for regular cleanup of the Alisal commercial corridors in an amount not to exceed $49,140 with Hope Services and enter into a License Agreement to use a portion of the property at 655 Elvee Drive in support of the commercial corridor regular cleanup services.

ID#24-397 Airport Economic Impact Study for the Salinas Municipal Airport Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding for cooperative procurement for consideration of professional services to complete an Airport Economic Impact Study for the Salinas Municipal Airport; and authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding.

ID#24-418 Service Agreement Renewal for TRAKiT Software with CentralSquare Technologies LLC
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with CentralSquare Technologies LLC for use of their TRAKiT software in an amount not to exceed $293,576.24 and extend the term to June 30, 2028.

ID#24-423 Professional Services Agreement Amendment 2 with Harris and Associates for the Salinas Creeks Maintenance and Enhancement Project Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment 2 with Harris and Associates for the Salinas Creeks Maintenance and Enhancement Plan to increase the compensation by $332,325 for a revised not to exceed amount of $696,193, revise the scope of services, and extend the Agreement to September 1, 2026.

ID#24-436 Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair and Improvements, CIP No. 9010 Recommendation: 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.

ID#24-441 Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP No. 9720 Recommendation: Approve a Resolution accepting the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project CIP 9720, with JJR Construction Inc., for maintenance and responsibility.

ID#24-444 Determination of Zoning Code Exemption for Closter Park Revitalization Project
Recommendation: 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.

ID#24-450 Server Room HVAC Condenser Units
City of Salinas Page 4 Printed on 8/16/2024
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final August 20, 2024
Recommendation: 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.

ID#24-451 FY 24/25 NPDES Water Quality Monitoring Program Recommendation: 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.

ID#24-452 Removal of Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalk at South Hebbron Avenue and Prince Place
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution to remove the uncontrolled marked crosswalk at South Hebbron Avenue and Prince Place.

ID#24-459 Extended Subscription Term with Governmentjobs.com dba NEOGOV Recommendation: 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.

ID#24-461 California Water Service Water Conservation Rebate Program Award and Equipment Purchase
Recommendation: 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.

ID#24-463 Microsoft Office 365 Government G3 License Renewal Recommendation: 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.

ID#24-466 Temporary Pond 3 Diversion Agreement
Recommendation: 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.

ID#24-469 Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement for Services with Kysmet Security & Patrol, Inc.

Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment Number 1 with Kysmet Security & Patrol, Inc. for security services to increase the compensation by $36,000 for a revised not to exceed amount of $116,000 and extend the term to December 31, 2024.

ID#24-470 Tow Service Franchise Agreements for FY 2024-25 Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into the Salinas Police Department's FY 2024-25 Tow Service Franchise Agreements, setting the FY 2024-25 franchise fee, and increasing the credit for disposal of recreational vehicles from $1,300 to $1,500 per vehicle.

City of Salinas Page 5 Printed on 8/16/2024
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final August 20, 2024
6:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION
Receive public communications from the audience on Closed session items.

The City Council will recess to closed session pursuant to:

ID#24-457 a. Existing Litigation - Cal. Govt. Code section 54956.9(a), conference with legal counsel regarding, Lino Sanchez vs. City of Salinas, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Case Number(s): ADJ15768435; ADJ 15768439.
b. Existing Litigation - Cal. Govt. Code section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with legal counsel regarding, California Department of Housing and Community Development v. Shangri-La Industries, LLC et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case no. 24STCCV00629.
c. Anticipated Litigation - Cal. Govt. Code section 54956.9(d)(4), conference with legal counsel regarding potential initiation of litigation (one case).

THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECONVENE IN THE ROTUNDA AT 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. CONSIDERATION
ID#24-478 Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection
Recommendation: Receive a report and provide direction related to the preparation of a final draft Rent Stabilization Ordinance, Tenant Protection and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, and Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance.

COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS, APPOINTMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Receive communication from Councilmembers on reports, appointments and future agenda items. Councilmember comments are generally limited to three minutes.

ADJOURNMENT
_____________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

AGENDA MATERIAL / ADDENDUM
Any addendums will be posted within 72 hours of regular meetings or 24 hours of special meetings and in accordance with Californian Government Code Section 54954.2 and 54956. City Council agenda reports and other writings distributed to the legislative body may be viewed at the Salinas City Clerk’s Office, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, and are posted on the City’s website at www.cityofsalinas.org in accordance with California Government Code section 54597.5. The City Council may take action that is different than the proposed action reflected on the agenda.

Disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, may be requested by any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting. Language interpretation may be City of Salinas Page 6 Printed on 8/16/2024
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final August 20, 2024
requested as soon as possible but by no later than 5 p.m. of the last business day prior to the meeting. Requests should be referred to the City Clerk’s Office At 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, 758-7381, as soon as possible but by no later than 5 p.m. of the last business day prior to the meeting. Hearing impaired or TTY/TDD text telephone users may contact the city by dialing 711 for the California Relay Service (CRS) or by telephoning any other service providers’ CRS telephone number.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
This agenda was posted on August 16, 2024 in the Salinas Rotunda and City's website.

Meetings are streamed live at https://salinas.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx, televised live on Comcast Channel 25 and on http://www.youtube.com/thesalinaschannel at 4:00 p.m. on the date of the regularly scheduled meeting and will be broadcast throughout the day on Friday, Saturday, Monday and Wednesday following the meeting. For the most up-to-date Broadcast Schedule for The Salinas Channel on Comcast 25, please visit or subscribe to our Google Calendar located at http://tinyurl.com/SalinasChannel25. All past City Council meetings may also be viewed on the Salinas Channel on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/thesalinaschannel.

City of Salinas Page 7 Printed on 8/16/2024
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-462, Version: 1
2024 Fireworks Enforcement After-Action Report
Receive and accept the 2024 Fireworks Enforcement After-Action Report presented by the Salinas Fire and Police Department.

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 & POLICE DEPARTMENT
FROM: CHRISTOPHER KNAPP, DIVISION CHIEF/FIRE MARSHAL

JOHN MUREY, ACTING POLICE CHIEF
TITLE: 2024 FIREWORKS ENFORCEMENT AFTER-ACTION REPORT
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Receive and accept the 2024 Fireworks Enforcement After-Action Report presented by the Salinas Fire and Police Department.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The attached After-Action Report provides a comprehensive overview of the strategies utilized to enforce laws and ordinances regarding illegal fireworks in the City of Salinas. It outlines both the successes achieved and areas for improvement, guiding future enforcement efforts. Additionally, the report presents statistical data on the sale of 'Safe-n-Sane' fireworks and evaluates the effectiveness of our outreach and enforcement initiatives in curbing illegal fireworks use in Salinas.

BACKGROUND:

The use of illegal fireworks continues to frustrate our citizens and burden our limited public safety resources. As this problem is not unique to the City of Salinas, staff continues to work to find ways to help combat the issue and minimize the impacts to all.

The overall strategy for the public outreach campaign and enforcement plan was a collaborative effort on behalf of the SFD Prevention Division and other City departments, in collaboration with the City Council Fireworks Sub-Committee.

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 Page | 2
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:

Accepting this staff report supports the following Council goals:
• Safe Livable Community
• Quality of Life
DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This report is a compilation of information from the different departments and staff who participated in the enforcement operations and public outreach campaigns. The information was gathered by the Salinas Fire Department (SFD), the Salinas Police Department (SPD), Salinas Public Works Department (SPW), Monterey County Emergency Communications Department (ECD), and other City staff.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Statistical Information:

Page | 3
Enforcement and Education Expenses
Salinas Fire Department Operations
During this period in 2024, SFD responded to nearly 2,176 emergency incidents. A breakdown of the fire incidents with previous years’ data is provided as follows:
2022 2023 2024
Structure Fires: 56 15 13
Vegetation Fires: 40 62 61
Misc. Fire (Dumpsters, etc.): 38 18 60
Totals: 134 95 134
Administrative Citations
Administrative Citation Issued: 118
Highest Single Citation: $22,500
2023 2024 % Change/Difference
City Staff Overtime: $10,123 $16,628 64% - $6,505
Drone Equipment: $0.00 $14,996 NA - $14,996
Video Equipment: $0.00 $1,100 NA - $1,100
Outside Services: $8,720 $12,561 44% - $3,841
Vehicle Rental: $1,153 $1,411 22% - $258
Sign Printing: $3,500 $0.00 100% - $3,500
Total Expenses: $23,496 $46,696 98% - $23,200
Page | 4
ATTACHMENTS:
2024 After-Action Report
2024 After-Action PowerPoint
1 | Page
City of Salinas
Fireworks
Enforcement
Operations –
After Action
Report
August 20
2024
2 | Page

CONTENTS
EXPLANATION OF TERMS ........................................................................................................ 3 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4 AFTER ACTION REPORT OVERVIEW ..................................................................................... 5 STRENGTHS……………………………………………………………………………………13
AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT…………………………………………………………………..13
RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………………………………...14
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS……………………………………………………………14
IMPROVEMENT PLANNING MATRIX………………………………………………………15
3 | Page

EXPLANATION OF TERMS
Examples:

AAR After Action Report
CAD Computer Aided Dispatch
COS City of Salinas
EOC Emergency Operations Center
SFD Salinas Fire Department
SPD Salinas Police Department
SCE Salinas Code Enforcement
SPW Salinas Public Works
OCA Office of the City Attorney
ECD Emergency Communications Department
IAP Incident Action Plan
IC Incident Command
ICP Incident Command Post
ICS Incident Command System
NGEN Next Generation Emergency Network
RP Reporting Party
4 | Page

INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the various strategies used to enforce current laws and ordinances respective of illegal fireworks in the City of Salinas and will serve to highlight the relative successes and areas for improvement for future operations.

Focus:
 Prevention / public outreach
 Enforcement of illegal activity
 Incident Response / mitigation
Classification:
 Unclassified
 For Official Use Only (FOUO)
 By Invitation Only
Operation, Activity or Scenario:
 Fire
 Law Enforcement Action
 Severe Weather
 Hazardous Material Release
 Bomb Threat
 Medical Emergency
 Evacuation
 Lockdown
 Special Event
 Exercise/Drill
 Other
Statistical information for this report was collected from CAD records, and the various reporting platforms for the period of June 1, 2024 through July 12, 2024. 5 | Page

AFTER ACTION REPORT OVERVIEW
This report is a compilation of information from the different departments and staff who participated in the enforcement operations and public outreach campaigns. The information was gathered by the Salinas Fire Department (SFD), the Salinas Police Department (SPD), Salinas Public Works Department (SPW), Monterey County Emergency Communications Department (ECD), and other City staff.

The recommendations in this AAR should be viewed with considerable attention to the needs for a safe and livable community. In some cases, departments may determine that the benefits of implementation are insufficient to outweigh cost or pose a considerable safety risk for staff or the public. In other cases, departments may identify alternative solutions that are more effective.

However, each department should review the recommendations and determine the most appropriate action and time needed for implementation.

The issues addressed in this AAR should be reviewed and thoroughly examined for the appropriation of needed resources to ensure the functions of incident response, stabilization and enforcement are safe, efficient, and effective.
6 | Page
Operational Overview:

Starting on June 1st, a multi-media campaign was launched to increase involvement from residents in the reporting of illegal fireworks use. Building on the positive outcome realized in 2018 and 2019, large signs were again placed at key intersections throughout the city promoting the various methods of reporting illegal fireworks use. This was further publicized in a broad social media campaign, print press, and broadcast news outlets. A detailed statistical analysis is attached.

This campaign proved ongoing success in routing complaints received through the www.salinasfireworks.com website, the “Salinas Connect” application, as well as the voicemail and text tip line.
7 | Page
Based on the lessons learned from the previous fireworks seasons in 2020 through 2023, undercover patrols, along with marked vehicles, were deployed on the holiday to corroborate citizen tips from the Salinas Connect app, salinasfireworks.com website, voicemail, and text reports.

All members of the 2024 Fireworks Enforcement Task Force coordinated with one another via telecommunication related means, resources patrolled areas where increased activity was evident and collected evidence to support the issuance of administrative citations after the fact.

Citizen participation in reporting illegal fireworks slightly increased as compared to last year. This increase can be attributed to multiple factors including success of our campaign, inflation across many sectors like fuel and fireworks, and the holiday falling on a Thursday. The “Salinas Connect” 8 | Page
application served as the primary repository for all illegal fireworks reports and residents could upload pictures and video evidence to support the reports.

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS
For the period of June 1st through July 12th, the total number of Administrative Citations referred to the Office of City Attorney was 118.

Administrative fines remained unchanged from the previous year at $1,250 for the “Use, Possession, or Sale of Illegal Fireworks” and $250 for the “Noise Violation” totaling a minimum citation of $1,500.

In some cases, multiple fines were assessed where illegal activity was documented over several days. The highest single citation amount was $22,500.

Disputed citations are managed and heard in accordance with the City of Salinas Municipal Code.

The Fire Prevention Division coordinates the Administrative Hearing process with the necessary parties.

Statistical Information:

Duration: June 1st – July 12th, 2024
Funding Sources
2023 2024 % Change
“Safe & Sane” retail fireworks booth application fees: $7,513 $7,933 5.59% “Safe & Sane” fireworks retail sales surcharges (7% of gross): *$71,400 *$51,115 28.41% Illegal fireworks fines collected through Administrative Citations: $55,517 $58,126 4.70% Total Estimated Revenue $134,430 $117,174 $17,256
* Information as provided by wholesalers TNT and Phantom Fireworks. 9 | Page
Enforcement and Education Expenses
2023 2024 % Change/Difference
City Staff Overtime: $10,123 $16,628 64% - $6,505
Drone Equipment: $0.00 $14,996 NA - $14,996
Video Equipment: $0.00 $1,100 NA - $1,100
Outside Services: $8,720 $12,561 44% - $3,841
Vehicle Rental: $1,153 $1,411 22% - $258
Sign Printing: $3,500 $0.00 100% - $3,500
Total Expenses: $23,496 $46,696 98% - $23,200
10 | Page

FIREWORKS SALES AND SURCHARGE
Loc # GROUPS (12) NET SALES RETAIL SALES
(On Form) 7% SURCHG
CNR0001 Alisal HS Booster Club $28,530 $57,060 $3,994
CNR0002 Everett Alvarez Athletic Booster Club $24,758 $49,516 $3,466 CNR0003 Salinas City Virtual Academy $26,993 $53,986 $3,779 CNR0006 Rancho San Juan HS Booster Club $22,015 $44,030 $3,082 CNR0008 Sherwood School $30,863 $61,726 $4,321
CNR0011 Madonna Del Sasso School $31,829 $63,658 $4,456 CNR0012 CJ's Sport Academy $19,811 $39,622 $2,774
CNR0013 Salinas Rotary Club Alisal $17,653 $35,306 $2,471 CNR0014 Dance Arts Boosters INC $21,392 $42,784 $2,995
CNR0015 Palma High School $39,069 $78,138 $5,470
CNR0019 North Salinas HS Booster Club $36,361 $72,722 $5,091 CNR0026 SHS Athletic Booster Club $19,450 $38,900 $2,723 TOTALS $318,724 $637,448 $34,061
11 | Page
Acct Name 2024 Net Sales 2024 Retail Sales 7% Surcharge Confidence Pregnancy Center $17,200.21 $34,400.42 $2,408.03 The Epicenter $10,394.34 $20,788.68 $1,455.21
Family & Faith Ministries of CA $22,660.47 $45,320.94 $3,172.47 Lincoln Elementary School PTO $19,437.22 $38,874.44 $2,721.21 Mt. Toro High School $35,686.75 $71,373.50 $4,996.15
Oasis Charter Public School $16,431.73 $32,863.46 $2,300.44 Total $17,053.51
12 | Page
Salinas Fire Department Operations
During this period in 2024, SFD responded to nearly 2,176 emergency incidents. A breakdown of the fire incidents with previous years’ data is provided as follows:
2022 2023 2024
Structure Fires: 56 15 13
Vegetation Fires: 40 62 61
Misc. Fire (Dumpsters, etc.): 38 18 60
Totals: 134 95 134
For the 4th of July holiday period, SFD’s staffing consisted of 2 members of Fire Administration, 6 members of Fire Prevention, 6 SFD Drone Pilots, and additional city staff to respond to increased calls for service and patrol the target threat areas.

The Salinas Police Department provided 1 Commander, 1 Sergeant and 6 undercover officers. 9 additional city employees from assisted with illegal fireworks patrols. Those departments included: Community Development, City Clerk’s Office, City Manager’s Office, and Information Systems.

Salinas Fire responded to numerous calls for service on 4th of July to include 2 structure fires, 8 vegetation fires, 34 medical emergencies, 3 vehicle accidents, and numerous other calls.

13 | Page

STRENGTHS
 Adequate funding from existing fees, surcharges, and fines.  Participation from the City employees alleviated the excessive burden of limited SFD and SPD resources.
 Comprehensive media coverage including ad campaigns on all platforms such as television, radio, social media, and signs.
 Citizen-based tips from the “neighborhood approach” using Salinas Connect and fireworks hotline.
 Undercover operations to “observe and report” led to Administrative Citations with better evidentiary documentation.
 Integration of the Salinas Connect reporting platform provided detailed information for follow-up.
 Additional signage was placed at high visibility areas and intersections of the city.  Advance warnings sent to addresses where illegal fireworks were reported last year helped to deter activity in certain areas.

AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT
 Collection and sorting of data from various sources of intelligence remains a manual process and is labor intensive.
 Manual review of video evidence is also time consuming and delays issuance of Administrative Citations and pulls staff from normal job functions.  Means of collecting accurate evidence.
 More real time integration between tips and enforcement, starting in June. 14 | Page

RECOMMENDATIONS
 Increase utilization of Drone Teams (SPD and SFD) on future July 4th Holidays.  Continue to utilize additional city employees, willing to observe, report and collect evidence.
 Increase sharing of regional resources to target illegal fireworks sales.  Increase publicity of undercover activity and citation statistics in traditional and social media.
 Continue attempts to engage neighborhood groups and citizens in “observe and report” roles.
 Consider a “reward” system for tips leading to successful citation of individuals and property owners where illegal fireworks are used. Rewards could be funded with successfully collected fines.
 Work with community groups to establish a community-based organized fireworks display to discourage “at-home” use of illegal fireworks.

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
Continued collaborative efforts in this years’ campaign proved to be a positive influence toward curbing illegal fireworks use in the City of Salinas. The goal of these programs continues to focus on changing social consciousness at the individual and neighborhood level. It should be acknowledged that this is an ongoing process over several years but marked decreases in activity were noted this year.

The improvement in the quality of citizen reports is a positive indicator of the success of these efforts. The increase in citations with actionable evidence is another product of better collaboration between City departments in a coordinated fashion.

Future years’ plans will build on these successes and the Council Fireworks Subcommittee and City staff will remain engaged with constituents to discuss and implement recommendations to bring about a social change and improve the quality of life for the residents of Salinas. 15 | Page

IMPROVEMENT PLANNING MATRIX

IMPROVEMENT PLANNING MATRIX
Area of Improvement Improvement
Action
Responsible
Party/Areas
Targeted
Completion
Date
Status
1) Neighborhood
Involvement
Solicit more
participation in
outreach and
volunteer patrol
Council/Community
Safety Div.
4/2022 Ongoing
2) Limited Patrol
Staffing
Increase staffing
where possible
SFD/SPD/SCED 7/2022 Ongoing
3) Integration
with “Salinas
Connect”
Further refine
automated
responses and
reports
Administration
Div./SFD
Prevention Div.
5/2019 100%
complete
4) Data
Collection and
Sorting
Staff
collaboration to
merge data
sources
Administrative
Div./SFD
Prevention
6/2019 100%
complete
Multi-Unit
Dwelling
Enforcement
Identify better
methods for
citations of
individuals
SFD/City Attorney/
SPD/SCE/ Council
FW Subcommittee
1/2022 Ongoing
5) Limited
Administrative
Support
Identify existing
staff resources to
assist
SFD/Administrative
Div./FW SubCommittee/ SCE/
City Attorney
10/2022 In-process
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-447, Version: 1
2024-2025 Prioritization of Traffic Calming Projects
Approve a Resolution approving the proposed neighborhood traffic calming prioritization list for Fiscal Year 2024-2025.

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 & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION FROM: DAVID JACOBS, P.E., L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
THRU: ADRIANA ROBLES, P.E., CITY ENGINEER
BY: JONATHAN HERNANDEZ, JUNIOR ENGINEER
TITLE: 2024-2025 PRIORITIZATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECTS RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution approving the proposed neighborhood traffic calming prioritization list for Fiscal Year 2024-2025.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Numerous requests for traffic calming projects have exceeded City budgeted resources to respond to and provide traffic calming solutions for neighborhoods currently petitioning for projects. City staff evaluated and ranked traffic calming requests using the Council approved prioritization criteria. The Traffic and Transportation Commission reviewed and approved the draft prioritization list for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. It is recommended City Council approve the proposed neighborhood traffic calming project prioritization list for Fiscal Year 2024-2025.

BACKGROUND:

Over the years, the City has noted numerous concerns from residents regarding neighborhood traffic related issues. Many have been related to driver behavior in the form of speeding or cutthrough traffic on residential streets.

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

Page | 2
The City developed the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, which establishes a process for a community led effort to develop the design of a traffic calming plan that is ultimate supported by the residents themselves who will have to live with the project once it is completed. There are several countermeasures available to help mitigate traffic issues, however, the predominate request from the community tends to be rubberized speed cushions. Staff notes that there are other countermeasures available which can be more effective, and may have additional benefits beyond traffic calming, such as curb extensions and pedestrian ramps. However, the planning and design of traffic calming projects is a community led effort which tends to result in more rubberized speed cushions.

Staff estimates the average cost of a neighborhood traffic calming project typically ranges from $40,000 to $150,000 depending on the size and complexity of the project. The project can take several months for community input and approval before advancing to implementation. The FY 2023-24 budget for traffic calming projects was approximately $400,000, which was distributed to four traffic calming projects include Rainier Drive, Nogal Drive, Rochex Avenue, and Coventry Street.

An annual CIP budget of $200,000 was allocated by Council for traffic calming for FY2024-25.

The City anticipates completion of three projects for FY2024-25. Once the budget is depleted, the backlogged traffic calming petitions will be held until resources become available or until the next re-prioritization list is developed.

The backlog of traffic calming projects includes 21 streets. An additional 21 new traffic calming petitions were received by December 31, 2023. Petitions for traffic calming projects received after December 31, 2023, will be included in the FY2025-26 prioritization report once traffic data is available. Based on the prioritization scoring from the approved criteria, staff is recommending traffic calming improvement projects to be considered in the order shown in Table 1 for FY2024-

25. City staff will work on the projects in the order listed in the table until the budget is depleted.

Table 1: Traffic Calming Prioritization List
Rank Street Score
1 Las Casitas Drive 85
2 Arcadia Way 83
3 West Acacia Street 82
4 Van Buren Avenue 79
5 Antigua Avenue 68
6 Towt Street 66
7 Roosevelt Street 64
8 California Street 59
9 North Madeira Avenue 55
10 Acosta Street 53
11 Chardonnay Drive 50
12 Los Palos Drive 48
13 Swaner Avenue 47
Page | 3
14 Lorimer Drive 44
15 Calaveras Drive 42
16 Colton Drive 41
17 Emerald Drive 39*
18 Ranchero Drive 39*
19 Navajo Drive 38
20 Santa Teresa Way 34
21 Alamo Way 33*
22 Jackson Street 33*
23 Pueblo Drive 30
24 Pescadero Drive 29
25 Klamath Drive 28
26 Alameda Avenue 27
27 Los Coches Avenue 25
28 Paloma Avenue 24*
29 St. Francis Way 24*
30 Newport Court 24*
31 Mimbrera Way 20
*Streets with equal scores rank the highest collision history first For all other neighborhoods requesting traffic calming projects, which scored less than 20 out of 100, staff recommends closing out the request. Traffic studies found that these neighborhoods have relatively low speeds, volumes and collision history when compared to other neighborhoods.

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

Traffic and Transportation Commission
The traffic calming project prioritization list was presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its June 13, 2024, meeting. The Commission voted in favor to recommend City Council approve the proposed neighborhood traffic calming project prioritization list for Fiscal Year 2024-2025.

Note from the City Manager
Like many cities in California, Salinas has a robust traffic calming process that does a great job of ranking projects, however, because of budget and personnel resource considerations that does not mean that all projects are able to be done which leads to the backlog. This naturally leads to a lot of frustration.

Without question, this is an area of considerable interest, and it is an area that requires periodic updates and or review. As a result, staff will schedule a review of this program and process with the Council over the next few months.

Page | 4
CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The 2024-2025 Prioritization of Traffic Calming Projects supports the Council goal of “Effective and Culturally Responsive Government”.

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

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

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Public Works staff coordinates with the Salinas Fire Department regarding traffic calming devices and minimizing impacts to emergency response times. Public Works also coordinates with the Salinas Police Department if traffic enforcement assistance is necessary.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There will be no impact to the General Fund. Traffic calming projects are budgeted with Measure X annual allocations. Staff will work on the traffic calming projects in the order that they are prioritized for Fiscal Year 2024-25, until the related CIP (Project 9163) budget is depleted.

ATTACHMENTS:

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

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT PRIORITIZATION LIST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 WHEREAS, numerous requests for traffic calming projects have exceeded the City’s budgeted resources to respond to and provide traffic calming solutions for all the neighborhoods currently petitioning for projects; and
WHEREAS, City staff evaluated and ranked traffic calming request using the Councilapproved prioritization criteria; and WHEREAS, the Traffic and Transportation Commission reviewed the draft prioritization ranking and voted in favor to recommend Council approve the traffic calming project prioritization list for fiscal year 2024-2025; and WHEREAS, applying Council-approved prioritization criteria, staff recommends close out neighborhoods requesting traffic calming projects which scored less than 20 out of 100 as shown on Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL approves the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project Prioritization List for fiscal year 2024-2025; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves closure of the neighborhood requests for traffic calming projects that scored less than 20 based on the Traffic Calming Prioritization criteria.

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
Attachment 1: Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Master List Rank Neighborhood Score
1 Las Casitas Drive 85
2 Arcadia Way 83
3 West Acacia Street 82
4 Van Buren Avenue 79
5 Antigua Avenue 68
6 Towt Street 66
7 Roosevelt Street 64
8 California Street 59
9 North Madeira Avenue 55
10 Acosta Street 53
11 Chardonnay Drive 50
12 Los Palos Drive 48
13 Swaner Avenue 47
14 Lorimer Drive 44
15 Calaveras Drive 42
16 Colton Drive 41
17 Emerald Drive 39
18 Ranchero Drive 39
19 Navajo Drive 38
20 Santa Teresa Way 34
21 Alamo Way 33
22 Jackson Street 33
23 Pueblo Drive 30
24 Pescadero Drive 29
25 Klamath Drive 28
26 Alameda Avenue 27
27 Los Coches Avenue 25
28 Paloma Avenue 24
29 St. Francis Way 24
30 Newport Court 24
31 Mimbrera Way 20
32 Monroe Street 19
33 Hartford Street 18
34 Carmelita Drive 16
35 Fairview Avenue 15
36 Beverly Drive 11
37 Sharon Drive 10
38 Florence Place 9
39 Carol Drive 8
40 Barbara Place
5 41 Harryette Drive1
42 Jean Avenue1
STREET:

FROM Ranchero Drive TO Rider Avenue
STAFF
DATE 5/21/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 6,117 ADT 20
2 40 MPH 20
3 5 Each
0 Each
2 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
1 Each
5 10 /20 10
TOTAL SCORE 85
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Las Casitas Dr\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List 15 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
20 Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
Las Casitas Drive
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

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

Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
85th Percentile
Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

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

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

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
STREET:

FROM El Dorado Drive TO Natividad Road
STAFF
DATE 5/21/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 5,731 ADT 20
2 37 MPH 20
3 6 Each
0 Each
1 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
0 Each
5 13 /20 13
TOTAL SCORE 83
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Arcadia Way\05 FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
Arcadia Way
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
85th Percentile
10 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
20 Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
STREET:

FROM Iverson Street TO Padre Drive
STAFF
DATE 4/12/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 6,077 ADT 20
2 36 MPH 20
3 4 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
2 Each
0 Each
5 10 /20 10
TOTAL SCORE 82
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\W Acacia St\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List 20 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
12 Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
West Acacia Street
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
STREET:

FROM Russell Road TO San Juan Grade Road
STAFF
DATE 5/31/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 3,777 ADT 20
2 42 MPH 20
3 2 Each
0 Each
1 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
2 Each
1 Each
5 10 /20 10
TOTAL SCORE 79
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Van Buren Ave\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
Van Buren Avenue
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
85th Percentile
20 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
9 STREET:

FROM Rider Avenue TO North Sanborn Road
STAFF
DATE 5/21/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,827 ADT 7
2 34 MPH 18
3 6 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
2 Each
1 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 68
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Antigua Ave\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
Antigua Avenue
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
85th Percentile
20 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
18 STREET:

FROM East Alisal Street TO East Market Street
STAFF
DATE 5/22/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 4,912 ADT 20
2 33 MPH 16
3 2 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
2 Each
1 Each
5 4 /20 4
TOTAL SCORE 66
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Towt St\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
Towt Street
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
85th Percentile
20 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
6 STREET:

FROM Kern Street TO North Pearl Street
STAFF
DATE 5/15/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 3,002 ADT 20
2 34 MPH 18
3 10 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
1 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 64
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Roosevelt St\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
Roosevelt Street
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
85th Percentile
5 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
20 STREET:

FROM East Romie Lane TO John Street
STAFF
DATE 5/31/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 3,750 ADT 20
2 32 MPH 14
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
0 Each
5 12 /20 12
TOTAL SCORE 59
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\California St\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
California Street
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
85th Percentile
10 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
3 STREET:

FROM East Market Street TO East Alisal Street
STAFF
DATE 5/21/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 4,653 ADT 20
2 32 MPH 14
3 7 Each
0 Each
1 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 55
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\N Madeira Ave\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
North Madeira Avenue
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
85th Percentile
0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
20 STREET:

FROM North Sanborn Road TO Beech Street
STAFF
DATE 4/24/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,127 ADT 0
2 33 MPH 16
3 5 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
2 Each
2 Each
5 2 /20 2
TOTAL SCORE 53
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Acosta St\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
Acosta Street
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
85th Percentile
20 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
15 Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
STREET:

FROM MCKINNON STREET TO CROMWELL DRIVE
STAFF
DATE 4/6/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 2,481 ADT 20
2 45 MPH 20
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
1 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 50
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Chardonnay Dr\06 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

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

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

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

FROM East Romie Lane TO Fairmont Drive
STAFF
DATE 5/5/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 2,981 ADT 20
2 38 MPH 20
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
1 Each
5 13 /20 13
TOTAL SCORE 48
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Los Palos Dr\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List 5 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
3 Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
Los Palos Drive
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
STREET:

FROM SANTA RITA STREET TO VAN BUREN AVENUE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 681 ADT 0
2 32 MPH 14
3 4 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
0 Each
5 11 /20 11
TOTAL SCORE 47
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Swaner Ave\09 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

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

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

FROM Central Avenue TO West Alisal Street
STAFF
DATE 4/17/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 511 ADT 0
2 39 MPH 20
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
2 Each
1 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 44
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Lorimer St\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List 20 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
3 Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
Lorimer Street
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
STREET:

FROM EL DORADO DRVE TO YREKA DRIVE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 2,679 ADT 20
2 30 MPH 10
3 2 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
1 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 42
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Calaveras Dr\08 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

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

FROM Estrada Way TO Flint Way
STAFF
DATE 4/12/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 657 ADT 0
2 33 MPH 16
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
2 Each
0 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 41
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Colton Dr\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List 20 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
0 Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
Colton Drive
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
STREET:

FROM Donner Way TO Arcadia Way
STAFF
DATE 4/12/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,319 ADT 0
2 35 MPH 20
3 2 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
0 Each
5 3 /20 3
TOTAL SCORE 39
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Emerald Dr\05 FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List 10 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
6 Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
Emerald Drive
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
STREET:

FROM LAS CASITAS DRIVE TO LA HONDA COURT
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 719 ADT 0
2 34 MPH 18
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
0 Each
5 8 /20 8
TOTAL SCORE 39
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Ranchero Dr\06-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 10 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
3 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

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

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

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM Adams Street TO North First Street
STAFF
DATE 5/5/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,511 ADT 0
2 38 MPH 20
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 15 /20 15
TOTAL SCORE 38
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Navajo Dr\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
Navajo Drive
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
85th Percentile
0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
3 STREET:

FROM GRANADA AVENUE TO EAST LAUREL DRIVE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 801 ADT 0
2 32 MPH 14
3 2 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
0 Each
5 4 /20 4
TOTAL SCORE 34
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Santa Teresa Way\06 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

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

FROM GARNER AVENUE TO LAS CASITAS DRIVE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,884 ADT 8
2 32 MPH 14
3 2 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 33
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Alamo Way\06-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
6 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

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

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

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM Van Buren Avenue TO Swaner Avenue
STAFF
DATE 4/24/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 208 ADT 0
2 30 MPH 10
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
1 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 33
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Jackson St\05-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
Jackson Street
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
85th Percentile
15 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
3 Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
STREET:

FROM ADAMS STREET TO NORTH FIRST STREET
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 540 ADT 0
2 36 MPH 20
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 10 /20 10
TOTAL SCORE 30
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Pueblo Drive\06 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

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

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

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM LOS COCHES AVENUE TO INGLEWOOD STREET
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 845 ADT 0
2 29 MPH 8
3 2 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
0 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 29
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Pescadero Dr\06-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 10 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
6 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

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

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

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM Calaveras Drive TO Arcadia Way
STAFF
DATE 4/24/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,535 ADT 1
2 33 MPH 16
3 3 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 2 /20 2
TOTAL SCORE 28
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Klamath Dr\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
Klamath Drive
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

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

FROM ABBOTT STREET TO EAST ROMIE LANE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,394 ADT 0
2 31 MPH 12
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 15 /20 15
TOTAL SCORE 27
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Alameda Ave\06 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

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

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

AWDT
Facility Collector Facility
STREET:

FROM Natividad Road TO Cambrian Drive
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,148 ADT 0
2 35 MPH 20
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 2 /20 2
TOTAL SCORE 25
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Los Coches Ave\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
Los Coches Avenue
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
85th Percentile
0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
3 STREET:

FROM QUILLA STREET TO MARGARET STREET
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,370 ADT 0
2 33 MPH 16
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 24
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Paloma Ave\06 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

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

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

FROM Rosarita Drive TO Sorentini Drive
STAFF
DATE 4/23/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 577 ADT 0
2 32 MPH 14
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
1 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 24
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\St Francis Way\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
St. Francis Way
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

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

FROM Lexignton Drive (W) TO Lexington Drive (E)
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 179 ADT 0
2 32 MPH 14
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 10 /20 10
TOTAL SCORE 24
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Newport Ct\05-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
Newport Court
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Speed (20 Points)
Crash History (20 Points)
85th Percentile
0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
0 Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
STREET:

FROM NOGAL DRIVE TO RIDER AVENUE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 615 ADT 0
2 27 MPH 4
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
1 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 20
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Mimbrera Way\06-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

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

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

FROM West Laurel Drive TO Tulane Street
STAFF
DATE 5/5/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 772 ADT 0
2 31 MPH 12
3 2 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 19
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\Monroe St\05 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Traffic Calming Prioritization Worksheet.xls]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
6 Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
Monroe Street
Measure weekday average daily traffic volumes on the residential roadway. Counts should be collected over a 3-day duration and averaged. Seasonal considerations should be considered and volumes should be measured during the regular school calendars. A typical two-lane undivided residential street has a maximum capacity of 2,000 average daily trips. The traffic calming score for volume shall be determined as 1 point for every 50 vehicles per day exceeding 1,500 with a maximum possible score of 20 points.

Traffic Volumes (20 Points)
Score
AWDT
Collisions
Fatal
STREET:

FROM COVENTRY STREET TO INGLEWOOD STREET
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 129 ADT 0
2 22 MPH 0
3 1 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
1 Each
0 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 18
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Hartford Street\06 - FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

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

FROM WEST ALISAL STREET TO PALMA DRIVE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 324 ADT 0
2 28 MPH 6
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
1 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 16
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Carmelita Dr\06-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

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

FROM SHARON DRIVE TO CAROL DRIVE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 1,409 ADT 0
2 32 MPH 14
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 15
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Fairview Ave\06-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

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

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

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM FAIRVIEW AVENUE TO FLORENCE PLACE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 244 ADT 0
2 28 MPH 6
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 5 /20 5
TOTAL SCORE 11
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Beverly Dr\06-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

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

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

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM BARBARA PLACE TO FAIRVIEW AVENUE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 405 ADT 0
2 23 MPH 0
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 10 /20 10
TOTAL SCORE 10
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Sharon Dr\06-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

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

FROM FAIRVIEW AVENUE TO BEVERLY DRIVE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 225 ADT 0
2 29 MPH 8
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 9
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Florence Pl\06-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

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

FROM FLORENCE PLACE TO FAIRVIEW AVENUE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 83 ADT 0
2 22 MPH 0
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 8 /20 8
TOTAL SCORE 8
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Carol Dr\06-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

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

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

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM FAIRVIEW AVENUE TO BEVERLY DRIVE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 135 ADT 0
2 27 MPH 4
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 5
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Barbara Pl\06-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

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

FROM FAIRVIEW AVENUE TO CAROL DRIVE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 147 ADT 0
2 19 MPH 0
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 1
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Harryette Dr\06-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List 0 Geometrics and Engineering Considerations (20 Points) Designated School
Collisions
Fatal
Pedestrian/Bike
Pedestrian Generator
0 Review accident data for the three most recent years for which data is available. The traffic calming score for speed shall be calculated as 3 point for every accident. Adjustment factors of 3 and 2 are used respectively, to weight crash history for fatal and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. A maximum possible score of 20 points.

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

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

AWDT
Facility Residential street
STREET:

FROM SHARON DRIVE TO CAROL DRIVE
STAFF
DATE 4/25/2024

CATEGORY POINTS
1 102 ADT 0
2 17 MPH 0
3 0 Each
0 Each
0 Each
4 Land Use (20 Points)
0 Each
0 Each
5 1 /20 1
TOTAL SCORE 1
I:\PWTra\Traffic Calming\~Petitions\02 - FY 24-25 Petitions\FY 23-24 Backlog\Jean Ave\06-FY 24-25 Prioritization Draft\[FY 24-25 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Scoring Worksheet.xlsx]2017 Final Priority List

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

L I NA SC A L I F OR NIA
NLAS CASITAS DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 16-18, 2024 (WEEKDAY) LAS CASITAS DR

RIDER AVE

CAOBA WAY PINO WAY

RANCHERO DR
NOGAL DR 2ND ST EBANO PL FRESA PL

ALAMO WAY
31892928 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 41 MPH EB: 40 MPH COMBINED: 40 MPH ADT: 6117 28112673 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 35 MPH EB: 29 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 5483 29002480 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 30 MPH EB: 29 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 5380 2550226485TH PERCENTILE: WB: 29 MPH EB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 4814 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR NI A
N ARCADIA WAY TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 12-14, 2024 (WEEKDAY) E BORONDA RD

NATIVIDAD RD

EL DORADO RD ARCADIA WAY WIMBELDON AVE

BUCKINGHAM DR

KLAMATH DR

KENT ST

CHELSEA CT

OXFORD CT ARCADIA CT
EMERALD DR 30762654 25953101 24772173 29282679 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 36 MPH EB: 37 MPH COMBINED: 37 MPH ADT: 5731 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 34 MPH EB: 34 MPH COMBINED: 34 MPH ADT: 4650 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 30 MPH EB: 34 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 5696 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 30 MPH EB: 33 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 56070 300' 600' SCALE: 1"=300' WEST ACACIA STREET TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 19-21, 2024 (WEEKDAY)

W ACACIA ST

IVERSON ST

BAUTISTA DR

SAN ANTONIO DR

CAPISTRANO DR

RIKER ST
3150
2886 31142963 28402355

PADRE DR GEIL ST LANG ST

WEST ST

ACACIA CIR
ACACIA CIR85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 35 MPH EB: 32 MPH COMBINED: 34 MPH ADT: 6036 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 31 MPH EB: 33 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 6077 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 39MPH EB: 32 MPH COMBINED: 36 MPH ADT: 5195 0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"=250'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F O RNI A N

S A L I NA
S
C A L I F ORNI A N VAN BUREN AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY MAY 22 - MAY 24, 2024 (WEEKDAY)19191858 VAN BUREN AVE RUSSELL RD FILLMORE ST

KENNEDY ST

EISENHOWER ST TAYLOR ST CLEVELAND AVE

E BOLIVAR ST

SAN JUAN GRADE RD
JACKSON ST NORTHRIDGE DR 1674 1568 13611344
TAFT CIR 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 43 MPH SB: 41 MPH COMBINED: 42 MPH ADT: 2705 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 38 MPH SB: 41 MPH COMBINED: 40 MPH ADT: 3777 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 32 MPH SB: 32 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 3242 SCALE 1" = 300' ANTIGUA AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 30 - MAY 1-2, 2024 (WEEKDAY)

LA CUESTA CT

ANTIGUA CIR

RIDER AVE ANTIGUA AVE

BERNARDO AVE

N SANBORN RD

FREEDOM PKWY

PALMERA AVE

CORTINA WAY

BERNARDO CIR
VERA CRUZ CIR 831 887 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 29 MPH SB: 31 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 1718 892 935 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 29 MPH SB: 31 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 1827 701
711 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 33 MPH SB: 34 MPH COMBINED: 34 MPH ADT: 1412

S A L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A N
0 200' 400' SCALE: 1"= 200'
TOWT STREET TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 23-25, 2024 (WEEKDAY) TOWT ST

E ALISAL ST
1ST AVE
2ND AVE
E MARKET ST EUCALYPTUS DR 24482464 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 30 MPH SB: 36 MPH COMBINED: 33 MPH ADT: 4912 23032429 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 33 MPH SB: 34 MPH COMBINED: 33 MPH ADT: 4732 24852279 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 32 MPH SB: 34 MPH COMBINED: 33 MPH ADT: 4764 0 200' 400' SCALE: 1"= 200'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A N
ROOSEVELT STREET TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 23-25, 2024 (WEEKDAY) ROOSEVELT ST E ALISAL ST E MARKET ST

N MADEIRA AVE

N WOOD ST
N PEARL ST 9351048 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 32 MPH EB: 35 MPH COMBINED: 34 MPH ADT: 1983 826937 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 28 MPH EB: 33 MPH COMBINED: 31 MPH ADT: 1764 15061496 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 30 MPH EB: 33 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 3002

KERN ST
0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"=250'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR NI A N
CALIFORNIA STREET TRAFFIC STUDY MAY 22 - MAY 24, 2024 (WEEKDAY) CALIFORNIA ST OAK ST

E ACACIA ST

HAWTHORNE ST

E ROMIE LN

PINE ST CARMEL AVE

MAPLE ST PAJARO ST
0 300' 600' SCALE: 1"=300'

CHESNUT ST

WILLOW ST
HARVEST ST 18951855 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 33 MPH *SB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 31 MPH ADT: 3750 12701969 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 24 MPH SB: 24 MPH COMBINED: 24 MPH ADT: 3239 16221905 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 29 MPH SB: 34 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 3527 14001809 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 28 MPH SB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 3209 *DATA ACCOUNTS FOR 2 DAYS

S A L I NA S

C A L I F ORN AI N
N MADEIRA AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 9-11, 2024 (WEEKDAY) N MADEIRA AVE

E MARKET ST
E ALISAL ST 16691499 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 32 MPH SB: 32 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 3168 23522301 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 28 MPH SB: 29 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 4653

ROOSEVELT ST KINGS ST
0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"=250'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR N AI N
ACOSTA STREET TRAFFIC STUDY FEBRUARY 27-29, 2024 (WEEKDAY) ACOSTA ST E LAUREL DR MOHAR ST

N SANBORN RD

BEECH ST
MACHADO WAY 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 30 MPH EB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 1117 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 35 MPH EB: 32 MPH COMBINED: 33 MPH ADT: 1127 525602 519 598 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150'

SA L I NA S

C A L I F OR NI A N

S A L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A

N CHARDONNAY DR

MCKINNON ST

GAMAY WY

CROMWELL DR WINDSOR ST

CABERNET WY

ZINFANDEL WY
MERLOT WY CHARDONNAY DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 4-6, 2023 (WEEKDAY) 461 533 522539 722 838 11801302 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 30 MPH WB: 29 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 2481 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 33 MPH WB: 35 MPH COMBINED: 34 MPH ADT: 1560 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 48 MPH WB: 43 MPH COMBINED: 45 MPH ADT: 1061 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 30 MPH WB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 994 0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"=250' LOS PALOS DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 9-11, 2024 (WEEKDAY)

E ROMIE LN LOS PALOS DR

ABBOTT ST

FAIRMONT DR

MANOR DR FAIRMONT CIR
0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150'
167
2646 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 35 MPH EB: 42 MPH COMBINED: 38 MPH ADT: 2813 320
2661 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 29 MPH EB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 2981

SA L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A N

SWANER AVE

NORTHRIDGE DR

SANTA RITA ST

NORTHRIDGE DR

SAN JUAN GRADE RD

VAN BUREN AVE
JACKSON ST 0 200' 400' SCALE: 1"=200' SWANER AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 21-23, 2023 (WEEKDAY) 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 32 MPH WB: 31 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 667 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 23 MPH WB: 32 MPH COMBINED: 27 MPH ADT: 564 347 321 252 290 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 31 MPH WB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 681 PIERCE ST 391 313 S A L I NA SC A L I F OR NI A N

S A L I NA S

C A L I F O
RNI A N LORIMER STREET TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 19-21, 2024 (WEEKDAY) LORIMER ST HOMESTEAD AVE

CENTRAL AVE
W ALISAL ST 227284 185280 230268 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 37 MPH SB: 33 MPH COMBINED: 35 MPH ADT: 498 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 35 MPH SB: 34 MPH COMBINED: 35 MPH ADT: 511 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 38 MPH SB: 40 MPH COMBINED: 39 MPH ADT: 464 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150'

CALAVERAS DR

EL DORADO DR

SISKIYOU DR

UKIAH WAY

CHICO WAY

KLAMATH DR YREKA DR LOS COCHES AVE S A L I NA SC A L I F ORNI A N LESLIE DR 1303 1376 550 532 240 223 CALAVERAS DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY JULY 14-15, 2021 (WEEKDAY) 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 30 MPH WB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 2679 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 30 MPH WB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 1082 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 28 MPH WB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 463 0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"=250'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR NI A
N COLTON DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 12-14, 2024 (WEEKDAY) COLTON DR

FLINT WAY LARKIN ST STOKES WAY

ESTRADA WAY
SLOAT DR 258 174 314
343 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 36 MPH EB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 33 MPH ADT: 657 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 34 MPH EB: 26 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 432 SLOAT CIR 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150' EMERALD DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 12-14, 2024 (WEEKDAY) EMERALD DR NATIVIDAD RD

ARCADIA WAY

EMERALD WAY

BOCA WAY STRATFORD CT

TAHOE DR

DONNER WAY

TRUCKEE WAY DONNER CIR
0 200' 400' SCALE: 1"= 200' 85TH PERCENTILE: SB: 32 MPH NB: 31 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 888 447 441 617 624 636 683 85TH PERCENTILE: SB: 31 MPH NB: 35 MPH COMBINED: 33 MPH ADT: 1241 85TH PERCENTILE: SB: 34 MPH NB: 35 MPH COMBINED: 35 MPH ADT: 1319

S A L I NA S

C A L I FORNI A N

SA L I NA
SC A

L I F ORNI A
N
349
270 290 384 407 335 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 26 MPH WB: 25 MPH COMBINED: 25 MPH ADT: 619 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 33 MPH SB: 34 MPH COMBINED: 34 MPH ADT: 719 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 31 MPH WB: 27 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 697 RANCHERO DR

FRESA PL

EBANO PL
LAS CASITAS DR RANCHERO DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 21-23, 2023 (WEEKDAY) 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150' LA HONDA CT NAVAJO DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 16-18, 2024 (WEEKDAY) NAVAJO DR

N FIRST ST

MOHAWK AVE

BOEING AVE

W CURTIS ST PUEBLO DR

ADAMS ST OSAGE DR
0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"=250' 777 734 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 38 MPH EB: 38 MPH COMBINED: 38 MPH ADT: 1511 659
583 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 33 MPH EB: 32 MPH COMBINED: 33 MPH ADT: 1242 718 632 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 30 MPH EB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 1350

S A L I NA S

C A L I FOR NI A N
S A L I NA SC A L I F ORNI A N SANTA TERESA WAY TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 28-30, 2023 (WEEKDAY) ROSARITA DR GRANADA AVE SANTA TERESA WAY 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 30 MPH WB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 30 MPH ADT: 464 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 26 MPH WB: 24 MPH COMBINED: 25 MPH ADT: 801446 239 243 MADONNA DR 251 213 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 31 MPH WB: 33 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 482 355 E LAUREL DR 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150'

S A L I NA
SC A

L I F ORNI A
N

GARNER AVE

LA HONDA CT

LAS CASITAS DR

PINO WAY
LA HONDA CT ALAMO WAY TRAFFIC STUDY NOVEMBER 1-3, 2022 (WEEKDAY) ALAMO WY 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 25 MPH WB: 27 MPH COMBINED: 26 MPH ADT: 17427251018 8551029 781 85TH PERCENTILE: 668 EB: 32 MPH WB: 31 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 1884 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 31 MPH WB: 31 MPH COMBINED: 31 MPH ADT: 1449 0 200' 400' SCALE: 1"= 200'

S A L I N
A S

C A L I F O
R NI A N JACKSON STREET TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 16-18, 2024 (WEEKDAY) JACKSON ST SWANER AVE NORTHRIDGE DR VAN BUREN AVE 125 83 120 79 99 70 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 21 MPH EB: 21 MPH COMBINED: 21 MPH ADT: 208 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 28 MPH SB: 26 MPH COMBINED: 27 MPH ADT: 169 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 25 MPH SB: 27 MPH COMBINED: 26 MPH ADT: 199 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150'

S A L I N
A SC A L I F ORNI A N PUEBLO DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 7-9, 2023 (WEEKDAY) PUEBLO DR MOHAWK AVE W CURTIS ST CRESCENT WAY N FIRST ST 268 268 211 246 272 172 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 28 MPH EB: 24 MPH COMBINED: 26 MPH ADT: 383 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 34 MPH EB: 34 MPH COMBINED: 34 MPH ADT: 540 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 36 MPH EB: 36 MPH COMBINED: 36 MPH ADT: 513 ADAMS ST 0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"= 250' PESCADERO DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 7-9, 2023 (WEEKDAY)

SAUCITO AVE
SAUSAL DR PESCADERO DR 85TH PERCENTILE: SB: 28 MPH NB: 26 MPH COMBINED: 27 MPH ADT: 500 85TH PERCENTILE: SB: 29 MPH NB: 27 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 845 85TH PERCENTILE: SB: 24 MPH NB: 23 MPH COMBINED: 23 MPH ADT: 669 163 337 434 410 252
417
ARCADIA WY 119 163 85TH PERCENTILE: SB: 28 MPH NB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 282

COMPTON WY
0 400' 800' SCALE: 1"=400'

LOS COCHES AVE

INGLEWOOD ST

EL SUR AVE

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR N AI N
KLAMATH DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 12-14, 2024 (WEEKDAY)

ARCADIA WAY KLAMATH DR

CALAVERAS DR

YREKA DR

LOS COCHES AVE

SISKIYOU DR

CASCADE WAY CASCADE CT

KENT ST CHICO WAY UKIAH WAY LANCASHIRE DR

DORSET WAY

LANCASHIRE CIR
BUCKINGHAM DR 516413 534 613 769 766 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 36 MPH SB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 33 MPH ADT: 1535 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 36 MPH SB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 33 MPH ADT: 929 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 33 MPH SB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 1147 YOSEMITE CIR 0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"=250'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR NI A N
SA
L I NA
S
C A L I F OR N AI N 552 819 668 618 552 819 311 402 552 819 621 706 819 691552 703 ALAMEDA AVE

E ROMIE LN

E ACACIA ST

SANTA LUCIA AVE
ABBOTT ST ALAMEDA AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 28-30, 2023 (WEEKDAY) 85TH PERCENTILE NB:33 MPH SB:30 MPH COMBINED: 31 MPH ADT: 1286 85TH PERCENTILE NB: 22 MPH SB: 18 MPH COMBINED: 20 MPH ADT: 713 85TH PERCENTILE NB: 31 MPH SB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 31 MPH ADT: 1327 85TH PERCENTILE NB: 26 MPH SB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 27 MPH ADT: 1394

HAWTHORNE ST

EL PASO PI
MAPLEWOOD DR GROVE ST 0 250' 500' SCALE: 1"=250'
LOS COCHES AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 9-11, 2024 (WEEKDAY) LOS COCHES AVE

NATIVIDAD RD

PESCADERO DR

ALMADEN DR CUPERTINO WAY
CAMBRIAN DR SAUCITO AVE 437361 627521 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 39 MPH EB: 31 MPH COMBINED: 35 MPH ADT: 1148 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 38 MPH EB: 31 MPH COMBINED: 35 MPH ADT: 798 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150'

SA L I NA S

C A L I F O RNI A N
PALOMA AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY JANUARY 24-26, 2023 (WEEKDAY)

QUILLA ST

E MARKET ST

PALOMA AVE

E ALISAL ST

SYCAMORE RD

MIAMI ST
329
655
552
819
552
819
240
213 240
213
240
384240
384 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 25 MPH WB: 23 MPH COMBINED: 24 MPH ADT: 980 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 27 MPH WB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 1370 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 34 MPH WB: 33 MPH COMBINED: 33 MPH ADT: 624 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 26 MPH WB: 32MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 453

MARGARET ST
0 450' 900' SCALE: 1"=450'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A N
ST FRANCIS WAY TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 19-21, 2024 (WEEKDAY) ST FRANCIS WAY ST BRENDAN WAY

ROSARITA DR NATIVIDAD RD GRANADA AVE
183
200 188 191 288 289 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 29 MPH WB: 34 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 383 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 29 MPH SB: 32 MPH COMBINED: 31 MPH ADT: 379 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 24 MPH SB: 22 MPH COMBINED: 23 MPH ADT: 577 SORENTINI DR 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150'

S A L I NA
C
S

A L I F ORNI A N
SA
L I NA
S
C A L I F ORNI A N NEWPORT COURT TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 9-11, 2024 (WEEKDAY) NEWPORT CT LEXINGTON DR INDEPENDENCE BLVD 81 98 62 88 50 23 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 30 MPH SB: 33 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 179 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 24 MPH SB: 25 MPH COMBINED: 25 MPH ADT: 150 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 20 MPH EB: 19 MPH COMBINED: 20 MPH ADT: 73 0 100' 200' SCALE: 1"= 100' S
A

L I NA S

L A C FI ORNI A
NMIMBRERA WAY TRAFFIC STUDY JANUARY 24-26, 2023 (WEEKDAY) MIMBRERA WY

RIDER AVE
MANZANO CIR NOGAL DR 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 26 MPH SB: 29 MPH COMBINED: 27 MPH ADT: 615 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 24 MPH SB: 24 MPH COMBINED: 24 MPH ADT: 423 143 330 285 MIMBRERA CIR 0 100' 200' SCALE: 1"= 100' 280
MONROE STREET TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 30 - MAY 1-2, 2024 (WEEKDAY) MONROE ST ADAMS ST POLK ST

TULANE ST
W LAUREL DR 195 577 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 28 MPH SB: 30 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 772 192 572 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 30 MPH SB: 32 MPH COMBINED: 31 MPH ADT: 763 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150'

SA L I NA S

C A L I F ORNIA N

DANBURY ST

RIVERTON WY

INGLEWOOD ST

PORTSMOUTH WY
COVENTRY ST HARTFORD STREET TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 7-9, 2023 (WEEKDAY) 69 60 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 22 MPH EB: 23 MPH COMBINED: 22 MPH ADT : 100 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 20 MPH EB: 21 MPH COMBINED: 21 MPH ADT: 106 85TH PERCENTILE: NB:19 MPH SB:19 MPH COMBINED: 19 MPH ADT : 129 HARTFORD ST 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150' S A L I NA SC A L I F OR NIA N 62 43 72 29 PALMA DR W ALISAL ST CARMELITA DR CARMELITA DR 177 95 147 90 SIERRA MADRE DR CARMELITA DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 4-6, 2023 (WEEKDAY) 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 28 MPH WB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 324 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 26 MPH SB: 24 MPH COMBINED: 25 MPH ADT: 185 0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150' S A L I NA SC A L I F OR NI A N

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR NI A
N FAIRVIEW AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 7-9, 2023 (WEEKDAY) FAIRVIEW AVE

BARBARA PL
FLORENCE PL 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 32 MPH EB: 32 MPH COMBINED: 32 MPH ADT: 788 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 26 MPH EB: 28 MPH COMBINED: 27 MPH ADT:1409

SHARON DR

HARRYETTE DR
CAROL DR JEAN AVE 380 408 690 719 0 125' 250' SCALE: 1"=125' BEVERLY DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY FEBRUARY 21-23, 2023 (WEEKDAY)

FLORENCE PL

BEVERLY DR

SHARON DR FAIRVIEW AVE
48 70
83 94
131
113 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 23 MPH EB: 25 MPH COMBINED: 24 MPH ADT: 118 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 22 MPH EB: 22 MPH COMBINED: 22 MPH ADT: 177 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 28 MPH SB: 27 MPH COMBINED: 28 MPH ADT: 244

BARBARA PL

CAROL DR
0 150' 300' SCALE: 1"=150'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A N
SHARON DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY FEBRUARY 21-23, 2023 (WEEKDAY) BEVERLY DR SHARON DR

FAIRVIEW AVE

JEAN AVE
63 79 196 209
40 58 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 21 MPH SB: 21 MPH COMBINED: 21 MPH ADT: 141 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 24 MPH SB: 23 MPH COMBINED: 23 MPH ADT: 405 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 21 MPH SB: 24 MPH COMBINED: 22 MPH ADT: 98 0 100' 200' SCALE: 1"= 100'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F O R NIA N BARBARA PL
FLORENCE PLACE TRAFFIC STUDY FEBRUARY 21-23, 2023 (WEEKDAY) FLORENCE PL

FAIRVIEW AVE
BEVERLY DR 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 29 MPH SB: 29 MPH COMBINED: 29 MPH ADT: 225 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 28 MPH SB: 22 MPH COMBINED: 25 MPH ADT: 96

CAROL DR
0 100' 200' SCALE: 1"= 100' 114 111 56 40

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR NI A N
CAROL DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 7-9, 2023 (WEEKDAY)

FAIRVIEW AVE

HARRYETTE DR
FLORENCE PL CAROL DR 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 23 MPH SB: 22 MPH COMBINED: 22 MPH ADT: 80 85TH PERCENTILE: EB: 21 MPH WB: 19 MPH COMBINED: 20 MPH ADT: 83 54 29 52 28
0 100' 200' SCALE: 1"= 100'

S A L I NA S
A C

L I F OR NI A N
72 59 6867 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 28 MPH SB: 27 MPH COMBINED: 27 MPH ADT: 131 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 26 MPH SB: 24 MPH COMBINED: 25 MPH ADT: 135 BARBARA PLACE TRAFFIC STUDY FEBRUARY 21-23, 2023 (WEEKDAY) BEVERLY DR BARBARA PL FAIRVIEW AVE FLORENCE PL SHARON DR 0 100' 200' SCALE: 1"= 100'SA L I NA SC A L I F OR NI A N HARRYETTE DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 7-9, 2023 (WEEKDAY) HARRYETTE DR

FAIRVIEW AVE
CAROL DR 85TH PERCENTILE: NB: 19 MPH SB: 19 MPH COMBINED: 19 MPH ADT: 14776 71 0 70' 140' SCALE: 1"=70'

SA L I NA S

C A L I F ORNI A N
JEAN AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY MARCH 28-30, 2023 (WEEKDAY) JEAN AVE FAIRVIEW AVE CAROL AVE 27 75 85TH PERCENTILE: WB: 17 MPH EB: 18 MPH COMBINED: 17 MPH ADT: 102

SHARON DR
0 100' 200' SCALE: 1"= 100'

S A L I NA S

C A L I F OR NI A N

F EHR & PEERS

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O N S U L T A N T S
Final Report
City of Salinas
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
160 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 675
San Jose, CA 95113
SJ07-905
November 2008
& P L A N N I N G

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N
Final Report
City of Salinas
Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program
Prepared For:

City of Salinas
Prepared By:

Fehr & Peers
November 2008
SJ07-905

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................1 Purpose...................................................................................................................................................1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................1 NTMP Development................................................................................................................................2 Funding ...................................................................................................................................................3 How To Use This Document ...................................................................................................................3 Who to Contact .......................................................................................................................................3

2. Process Framework..............................................................................................................................5 Plan Initiation...........................................................................................................................................5 Plan Development...................................................................................................................................9 Neighborhood Support..........................................................................................................................11 Plan Implementation .............................................................................................................................13 Process for Removal.............................................................................................................................14

3. Toolbox ................................................................................................................................................16 Non-Physical Devices ...........................................................................................................................17 Speed Control – Narrowing Devices.....................................................................................................23 Speed Control – Horizontal Devices.....................................................................................................28 Speed Control – Vertical Devices .........................................................................................................34 Volume Control – Devices ....................................................................................................................43

4. Toolbox Guidelines.............................................................................................................................50 Guidelines .............................................................................................................................................50 Effectiveness Comparison ....................................................................................................................51 Placing the Neighborhood Traffic Management Measures...................................................................51

5. New Development Guidelines............................................................................................................59 Suggested Development Review Process............................................................................................59 Development Review Practices ............................................................................................................61 Designing Street Networks ...................................................................................................................61 Designing for Appropriate Speeds ........................................................................................................62 Designing for Local Traffic ....................................................................................................................63 Pedestrian/Vehicle Conflict Areas.........................................................................................................63 Developing a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan........................................................................64 Appendix A – Design Guidelines ...........................................................................................................A-1 Speed Control – Vertical Measures .................................................................................................... A-1 Horizontal Deflection Measures .......................................................................................................... A-3 Narrowing Measures........................................................................................................................... A-4 Landscaping........................................................................................................................................ A-5 Signage and Striping........................................................................................................................... A-6 Combined Measures........................................................................................................................... A-6 Appendix B – Standard Traffic Calming Templates.............................................................................B-1 Appendix C – City of Salinas Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Devises Policy ...............................C-1 Appendix D – City of Salinas Primary Fire Response Routes............................................................D-1

LIST OF TABLES

SECTION PAGE
Table 1 Applicability of Treatments by Traffic Related Concern........................................................52 Table 2 Applicability of Treatments by Location ................................................................................53 Table 3 Applicability by Street Type...................................................................................................54 Table 4 Quantitative Impacts of Neighborhood Traffic Management Measures ...............................56

LIST OF FIGURES

SECTION PAGE
Figure 1 NTMP Process Framework...........................................................................................................6 Figure 2 NTMP Process For Removal ......................................................................................................15 Figure 3 Estimating Midpoint Speed .........................................................................................................57 Figure 4 New Development Review Process............................................................................................60 Figure 5 Correlation Between Pavement Width, Unimpeded Street Length and Speed..........................63 Figure A-1 Vertical Measure Ramp Profiles ............................................................................................... A-1 Figure A-2 Traffic circles at T-Intersections................................................................................................ A-4 Figure A-3 Common Warning Signs ........................................................................................................... A-7 Figure B-1A Speed Hump – Parabolic Profile............................................................................................... B-2 Figure B-1B Speed Hump – Sinusoidal Profile ............................................................................................. B-3 Figure B-2 Speed Lump.............................................................................................................................. B-4 Figure B-3 Speed Table.............................................................................................................................. B-5 Figure B-4 Raised Crosswalk ..................................................................................................................... B-6 Figure B-5 Raised Intersection ................................................................................................................... B-7 Figure B-6 Vertical Device – Advance Warning Markings.......................................................................... B-8 Figure B-7 Neckdown/Bulbout – Intersection ............................................................................................. B-9 Figure B-8 Neckdown/Bulbout – Midblock................................................................................................ B-10 Figure B-9 Center Island Narrowing ......................................................................................................... B-11 Figure B-10 Two-lane Choker..................................................................................................................... B-12 Figure B-11 Traffic Circle............................................................................................................................ B-13 Figure B-12 Chicane................................................................................................................................... B-14 Figure B-13 Partial Closure......................................................................................................................... B-15 Figure B-14 Diagonal Diverter .................................................................................................................... B-16 Figure B-15 Median Barrier......................................................................................................................... B-17 Figure B-16 Forced Turn Island.................................................................................................................. B-18 Figure D-1 City of Salinas Primary Fire Response Routes......................................................................... D-2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Robert Russell, P.E. City Deputy/Engineer City Manager, City of Salinas James Serrano, Transportation Planner, Development and Engineering Services Department, City of Salinas Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 1
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

1. INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE
Growth in traffic volumes in Salinas and the broader region has increased the frequency and severity of traffic-related issues on neighborhood streets. Numerous agencies across the nation have confronted these problems using a proven process and tools to address both safety and quality-of-life concerns. The process is known as a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP), which uses traffic calming tools and techniques.

The purpose of this document is to define a NTMP that is customized to the needs and unique characteristics of Salinas residential streets.

OVERVIEW
As defined in an ITE Journal article, “[t]raffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for nonmotorized street users.”1 This definition suggests that the negative effects of vehicle speeds and/or excessive traffic volumes on neighborhood streets can diminish the residential quality of life. While residential life “quality” is subjective, vehicle speeds and traffic volumes can be quantified and compared against adopted community or industry standards. Experiences reinforce this notion as some community residents embrace traffic calming, while others are not so willing to accept the inconveniences of “managed traffic” in lieu of a perceived improvement in residential quality of life.

With this in mind, the Development and Engineering Services (DES) Department has requested assistance with preparation of a comprehensive program that includes a systematic approach to handling neighborhood traffic requests, and applying the most appropriate traffic calming measures for the situation at hand. The NTMP will also engage community residents during the development of individual neighborhood traffic calming plans and determine local support for the plan through neighborhood participation.

The process defined herein is intended solely for use on public streets and is not applicable to non-City maintained roadways (i.e., private roads, or county roadways). However, use of this manual as a guideline for non-City roadways, will require oversight by the Fire Department on the planning, design, and implementation of such features. Eligible City maintained roadways (i.e., public roads) include two-lane local, collector, and some minor arterials located within the City limits.

The terms “local” and “collector” streets refer to the functional classification that denotes a specific level in the transportation network hierarchy and specifies the design according to City of Salinas standards. While the streets may have been designed for a particular purpose, they may function differently in the field than intended. Therefore, it may be difficult to differentiate between the two classifications. Following is a narrative description of each roadway classification:
• Local Streets provide direct access to residential properties and facilitate short neighborhood trips.

Typical local street features include:
− Two-lane 24- to 34-foot travel way width (curb face to curb face) 1 Lockwood, I.M., “ITE Traffic Calming Definition.” ITE Journal, Vol. 67, July 1997, pp. 22-24.

Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 2
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

− Serves fewer than 75 residential units on a through cul-de-sac or street • Collector Streets are secondary roads that connect motorists from surrounding local streets to arterial roadways and freeways and facilitate intermediate trip lengths. Typical collector street features include:
− 34- to 40-foot travel way
− Connects local streets to arterials
− May or may not include front-on housing
The underpinnings of the NTMP are based on a combination of parallel strategies, known collectively as the “Three E’s”:
• Education – Providing information and raising awareness; targeting drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists about the safest and best ways to share the road.
• Engineering – Physical measures constructed to lower speeds, improve safety, or otherwise reduce the impacts of automobiles, on residents and other transportation modes. • Enforcement – Targeted enforcement by the City of Salinas Police Department to reinforce the emphasis on education and engineering aspects of the program.

This document focuses on the engineering aspects of neighborhood traffic calming, though education and enforcement play an important role in any engineering strategy. This document and informational flyers provide education, while the City of Salinas Police Department, Monterey County Sheriff Department, and California Highway Patrol conduct targeted speed enforcement. Although targeted speed enforcement provides a positive influence on neighborhood streets, the demand for this service can easily outstrip the resources of any enforcement agency. Therefore, neighborhood traffic calming is a viable alternative that is typically self-enforcing and minimizes operating costs.

This program also considers the roadway network and design of new developments. Developers, with guidance from DES staff, can reduce the need for future traffic calming by designing new streets that discourage speeding and cut-through traffic. To supplement these design principles, developers can incorporate traffic calming concepts and measures as part of the initial development.

NTMP DEVELOPMENT
This manual was adapted to meet the needs of the City of Salinas. An advisory committee composed of representatives from City of Salinas Planning, Engineering, and Traffic Divisions; Salinas Fire Districts, Salinas Police Department; Monterey Salinas Transit; City Council Districts, and local agencies and interested parties convened to review material and provide input on specific aspects of the NTMP process framework and toolbox.

The material presented to the TAC was based on a 2004 national survey conducted of 21 leading jurisdictions’ traffic calming practices. The survey provided insight into the evolution of the traffic calming field since the last in-depth report2
almost a decade ago. The various approaches, policies, and uses of traffic 2 Ewing, R. Traffic Calming State-of-the-Practice. Washington, D.C., USA: Institute of Transportation Engineers /Federal Highway Administration, 1999.

Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 3
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
calming devices reported in this survey provided a menu of alternatives to develop a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program unique to the City of Salinas.

FUNDING
Funding for the Salinas NTMP will likely come from the City’s limited street funding, which will compete annually for funding amongst other programs. Funding will go towards staff time (operating cost) and construction costs (capital cost) of standard devices. As DES identifies needs in the next fiscal budget, City staff and decision-makers may recognize that other funding sources may be necessary to maintain the program or meet the anticipated demand. To offset the public demand and stretch the funding, residents will be required to contribute 75 percent of the costs for speed humps (or other vertical devices). Additional cost sharing may be necessary depending on annual funding and level of public demand. The need and proportional share to residents will be determined annually.

In the absence of funding or to expedite treatment, residents may elect to fund a local traffic calming plan.

The neighborhood must prove the financial ability to fund 100 percent of the anticipated costs, which include plan development, engineering drawings, and construction. Upon proof of financial ability, DES can elect to authorize the neighborhood’s request to develop a traffic calming plan. Regardless of resident contributions, physical measures will be implemented only if warranted through an engineering study or as part of another City sponsored project (e.g., a streetscape plan).

In addition, residents could voluntarily elect to fund aesthetic upgrades to the standard devices. Such aesthetic upgrades could include landscaping or use of decorative materials.

HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
This document provides guidelines, not rigid requirements. These guidelines are primarily intended for DES staff and residents to help develop an appropriate NTMP, and for builders and staff to create and review new subdivision plans.

This manual will likely evolve as staff and community members work through the program; and identify more efficient or different methods of implementing the program and better ways of disseminating information. DES staff may also revise the design guidelines and cost estimates to ensure updated material is presented.

WHO TO CONTACT
To find out more information about the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program or whether your street is eligible for traffic calming, please contact:
• The Traffic and Transportation Division of the Development and Engineering Services Department at (831) 758-7241 or [email protected].

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 4

HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
If you are a Resident, you should focus on the
following chapters:

Chapter 2, Process Framework, to find out how to
request traffic calming on your street and the steps
necessary to implement a traffic calming plan.

Chapter 3, Toolbox, to discover what particular traffic calming devices are available and the advantages and
disadvantages of each.

If you are an Engineer/Planner involved in the
development of a new subdivision, you should focus on
the following chapters:

Chapters 3 and 4, Toolbox and Toolbox Guidelines, to
discover what devices you can incorporate into your
development.

Chapter 5, New Development Guidelines, for techniques
to minimize the potential for future speeding and trafficrelated concerns.

DES staff members should focus on the above Chapters as well as the following appendices:

Appendix A – Design Guidelines provides recommended design features to minimize design issues once implemented.

Appendix B – Standard Traffic Calming Templates provides standard designs templates that can be easily modified to fit specific roadways.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 5

2. PROCESS FRAMEWORK
The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program is a partnership between the City and its residents.

Participation begins with the initial petition filing, continues with the development of a neighborhood traffic calming plan, then moves to the final step of determining neighborhood support. The process framework identifies the steps by which the Development and Engineering Services (DES) staff and community members interact and participate in the NTMP. Figure 1 on the following page graphically illustrates the NTMP process framework. The accompanying text below provides greater detail.

The process framework is comprised of four key elements that focus on specific tasks and conclude with the implementation of a traffic calming plan.

Each step of the
Process Framework
is numbered and
corresponds with
Figure 1.
• Plan Initiation – Is my street eligible for traffic calming consideration? • Plan Development – Who develops the traffic calming plan? • Plan Support – What are the requirements for neighborhood support? • Plan Implementation – How are the supported traffic calming measures installed?
This chapter also includes a “Process for Removal”. This process presents the framework for removal of neighborhood calming devices in the event residents wish to have certain aspects of the implemented plan removed.

PLAN INITIATION
This component describes how to initiate the NTMP and determine eligibility. 1 –Assess DES Workload and Determine Number of Areas to be Treated Before initiating a local traffic calming plan, staff will review the number of areas that can be treated in given year based on the city’s traffic calming budget and workload. This assessment is important to balance the resources of the department due to the close oversight and required level of staff involvement. 2 – Citizen Request
The process is initiated when a resident(s) submits a request to DES staff to investigate speeding, traffic volumes, or traffic-related safety concerns within their neighborhood. Requests for City-maintained streets should provide sufficient detail for staff to understand the traffic-related concern and magnitude. The action initiates the dialogue between the resident(s) and DES staff. Requests can be submitted via letter or e-mail.

Requests in writing from City Council will also initiate the process.

NTMP PROCESS FRAMEWORK
Figure 1 November 2008 SJ07-905
DES identifies number of areas that can be treated in given year based on the city's traffic calming budget and workload.

1. Plan Initiation
Citizen Request (also via City Council): Stating perceived problem and affected area via calls, e-mail, or through Web site.

Community Meeting:- Noticing to neighborhood- Overview of process- Review of issues- Define desired outcome- Tutorial by Staff- Form Neighborhood Traffic Committee (NTC)- Review annual capital budget allocation and local contributions
- Petition sent to citizens
Plan Development (3):- Identify physical traffic calming devices to treat issues according to street type, subject to device eligibility guidelines. - Review annual capital budget allocation and local contributions.- Funding commitment required- Solicit affected agency inputNeighborhood Meeting:- Notify residents of meeting- Review draft plan- Gather final input- Educate attendees on survey process- Refine plan as appropriate Determine plan
support. (4)
Level of Support required for Phase 2 or 3
devices:
- Minimum Response Rate = 50%- Minimum Approval Rate = 67%Tally Survey Results:- Staff tallies neighborhood support.- General public responses noted separately.- Identify neighborhood support for traffic calming plan and finding plan.

Design and Consultation:- Develop final designs and review with affected agencies (Fire, Police, Transit Agency, School District). - Conduct field tests of devices, as appropriate.

Construct
temporary or
permanent
devices as
appropriate (5)
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Revise as Needed (6)
Problem resolved?
(1) A response is sent to every citizen who made a request informing them of the course of action. (2) Study area to include all streets that may experience a significant change in traffic due to treatment and will generally be bounded by arterials, freeways, rivers, etc. (3) First round of plan development will focus on speed control devices, if Development and Engineering Services (DES) implementation of non-physical measures in Step 3a/3b. (4) Surveys distributed within study area. Multi Unit Dwellings' responses do not count toward the minimum response rate. Survey includes three questions: (a) Do you support the proposed plan? (b) Would you oppose a traffic calming device adjacent to your property? (c) Would you contribute to neighborhood funding of the proposed traffic calming measures? (5) Temporary devices are constructed at staff discretion based on previous experience. Temporary devices can be converted to permanent devices after 6 months of acceptable performance. (6) If non-physical and speed control devices are found to be ineffective, DES may initiate volume control plan.

2. Plan Development 3. Plan Support 4. Plan Implementation DES
Staff to
Assess Issues:

Treatment
required?
Concern warrants DES action,
such as Phase 1 non-physical
traffic calming devices,
enforcement, maintenance,
traffic operations, or other
action.

Concern warrants education,
such as the city's STREETS
SMARTS Program or
distribution of flyers.

Problem
resolved?
Pursue physical traffic calming
measures.

DES Staff Defines Study
Area (2) and Collect Initial
Traffic Data on Identified Streets
Neighborhood
Support?
No
No
Traffic concern
remedied.

Yes
DES
Conceptual
Approval & Verification
of Project
Funding
Yes
1 3
3a
3b
4 3c
56 7
8 9
10 12
16 17
18 13
2 11
Traffic and Transportation
Commission Consideration/
Recommendations to Council
City Council
Approval of Traffic Calming
and Funding Plans
No Yes
14 15
DES sends letter to citizen
indicating request is on a waiting
list for future evaluation.

Review completed.

Resident notified.(1)
No
Yes
Yes
No
Traffic concern
remedied.

Refine
plan
once
Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 7
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
3 – Assess Traffic
DES staff will review the petition and determine the appropriate course of action. Certain traffic concerns may be remedied through methods other than physical traffic calming devices (3a). For instance, staff may initially install non-physical traffic calming devices (see Chapter 3) that utilize signs and roadway striping, conduct landscaping maintenance (e.g., trees blocking a stop sign), request targeted speed enforcement by the Salinas Police Department, or provide other engineering related improvements. Additionally, DES staff may distribute or assist residents with distribution of educational flyers reminding local residents of the rules of the road and safe neighborhood driving habits (3b). Following these actions, staff will determine whether the treatments remedied the cited concern based on technical documentation (3c).

The City will send a response letter to the individual who submitted the original request, indicating the initial action City staff intends to undertake. If the non-physical traffic calming measures or other actions do not eliminate the concern, staff may recommend physical traffic calming treatments. 4 – Traffic Calming Issue
Upon receipt of the request or determination that previous non-physical traffic calming actions did not address the cited concerns, DES staff may elect to pursue a traffic calming plan with local residents. 5 – Citizen Notified of Course of Action
Staff will send a letter to those residents indicating that their request is on a waiting list for future evaluation pending available City resources. If the number of requests exceeds staff resources, staff will select requests first on a safety priority basis (i.e., locations with a higher than expected number of collisions, higher pedestrian/bicycle concentration locations such as schools, community centers, or libraries) and second on a first-come-first-served basis. The remaining locations will be placed on a waiting list.

To provide residents with another avenue for treatment, neighborhoods can elect to fund the analysis and construction of traffic calming devices to consider expedited neighborhood treatment. The neighborhood must prove the financial ability to fund 100 percent of the anticipated costs, which include field analysis, plan development, engineering drawings, and construction. Upon proof of financial ability, the City can elect to authorize the neighborhood’s request to develop a traffic calming plan. 6 – DES Defines Study Area and Collect Initial Traffic Data Upon notification to proceed, DES staff will initially define the study area, which may be a specific street or much larger area such as a neighborhood. The size of the study area depends on the extent of the trafficrelated concerns and should include any streets that could serve as an alternative route to the treated street.

The study area may also include streets that have their only access to the treated street (e.g., cul-de-sac).

Boundary lines can also follow geographic features such as a creek, hillside, open space, or an arterial roadway. The study area may later be refined with resident input.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 8
If the necessary signatures are attained, the City of Salinas Development and Engineering Services (DES) Division will initiate a neighborhood meeting to discuss neighborhood traffic issues and begin development of a traffic calming plan.

Printed Name Signature Address Phone No.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

To verify local support, please provide the names, signatures, and contact information of at least 10 residents and/or property owners 18 years and older (from separate households) who support requesting that this neighborhood be considered for selection in the next NTMP cycle.

City of Salinas
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Petition Form
Name of Person Submitting Petition form: __________________________________________ Date: ______________________________________________________________________ Phone Number: ______________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Your street or neighborhood is being considered for participation in the City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). This program addresses neighborhood speeding and traffic volume concerns through the use of traffic calming devices. Individual neighborhood plans will partially or completely be funded by the City of Salinas Development and Engineering Services (DES) Division; however, a percentage of the costs may be borne by the neighborhood.

Initial Description of Problem: ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 9
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Based on the study area, DES staff will collect traffic data on streets identified as a concern. Traffic data collection will include the following:
• Street width and length
• Traffic speeds
• Traffic volumes
• Collision history
Traffic speeds and volumes should be collected for a minimum of 48 hours using a mechanical traffic counter or other appropriate device. Staff may elect to conduct a radar speed surveys to verify traffic speeds or conduct a time specific speed survey. Surveys should be collected on all potentially affected streets to insure a comprehensive set of base data for comparison purposes.

PLAN DEVELOPMENT
The plan development component is a collaborative effort between DES staff and a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Committee (NTC). They will work together to develop a traffic calming plan by completing the following steps:
7 – Neighborhood Kick-off Meeting
For those requests selected by DES staff, they will send a petition to the individual who initially requested the investigation. The petition requires a minimum of 10 signatures in support of pursuing a traffic calming plan.

The signatures must be from individuals 18 years and older and from separate households. If the requesting individual cannot attain the minimum required 10 signatures, the request will be terminated. For streets or street segments with fewer than 10 residential units, the City may elect to accept the signatures from a majority of household residents.

Staff will notify study area residents, property owners, and business owners of a neighborhood meeting to learn more about the selection of their neighborhood area to participate in the NTMP. DES staff will host a neighborhood meeting to provide an overview of the NTMP and the process to develop, approve, and implement a neighborhood traffic calming plan. At this meeting, staff will accomplish the following:
• Review traffic-related issues – Discuss the type of issue(s), location(s), and time of occurrences.

Collect any additional information regarding traffic-related issues. • Refine Study area (if necessary) – Staff will refine the study area based on street(s) affected by the traffic-related issues or that may be potentially affected by development of a neighborhood traffic management plan.
• Review traffic data – Review the initial data collected and determine whether additional data collection is necessary.
• Neighborhood traffic management tutorial – Present an overview of available neighborhood traffic calming devices.
• Discuss Funding – The DES will identify the available funding sources and the anticipated amount of funding to be borne by the neighborhood for the construction of traffic calming devices. In addition, residents will be informed of the opportunity to fund enhanced aesthetic features, such as landscaping.

Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 10
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
DES staff will provide interested residents the opportunity to volunteer and participate on the NTC. The NTC will meet with DES staff to review and develop a plan for their neighborhood. Although all residents have the opportunity to provide input and receive updates as the plan develops, the NTC is more actively involved, committing the time and effort necessary to develop a comprehensive plan. 8 – Plan Development
The NTC and DES staff will develop a short list of traffic calming devices to most appropriately treat the traffic concerns. Staff will provide guidance on the selection and placement of the devices. The Toolbox Guideline Tables 1-3 (see Chapter 4) can help to determine the most appropriate devices. The NTC will ultimately present the proposed plan to residents of the study area for public review and comment.

Following implementation on non-physical devices in the initial phase (step 3), Staff will use the following types of physical traffic calming measures to treat the traffic related concerns (see Toolbox chapter for more information):
• Vertical Devices – Speed humps, speed lumps, speed tables, etc. • Narrowing Devices – Bulbouts, chokers, center island narrowings, etc. • Horizontal Devices – Traffic circles, chicanes, lateral shifts, etc.

Because volume control measures (e.g., partial closures or forced turn islands) intentionally divert traffic to another street, new issues are likely to occur as a result. The City strongly promotes connectivity in and between neighborhoods to distribute traffic and minimize all modes of travel. For these reasons, volume control devices should be reserved until all other options have proven ineffective at reducing the traffic-related impacts.

Once DES staff and NTC have developed a plan that will adequately address the neighborhood concerns and finalized the committed funding sources, staff will solicit feedback from local service providers that may be affected by the plan. The intent is to identify concerns and develop viable alternatives to strike a balance between goals of the NTMP and the needs of other agencies. The following service providers should be included as appropriate when coordinating the plan review. • City of Salinas Fire District
• City of Salinas Police Department
• Ambulance Service Providers
• Monterey Salinas Transit
• Local School District / Bus Service
• Solid waste collection companies

Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 11
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
9 – Proposed Plan Neighborhood Meeting
DES staff will notify the study area residents of a neighborhood meeting to review the Proposed Plan.

Residents will have the opportunity to review and provide input on the proposed plan. At this meeting, the NTC will present a map of the proposed plan, describe the types and locations of devices proposed, and discuss the estimated construction costs. If applicable, the NTC will also discuss the aesthetic improvements to gauge resident support. Changes to the proposed plan can be made as necessary.

The DES will also inform residents of the approval process and ballots they will receive once the proposed plan is refined.
10 – DES Conceptual Approval and Verification of Project Funding Prior to determining neighborhood support, DES staff will conceptually approve the plan and verify placement of all proposed traffic calming devices. Staff will also verify the residents’ financial responsibility for the proposed plan. The residents’ financial responsibility may include a portion of the construction costs and any costs for aesthetic upgrades.

NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT
The neighborhood support component assesses the amount of local neighborhood support for the proposed plan in the form of mail-in ballots. DES staff will mail the ballots to the study area residents, property owners, and applicable business owners.
11 – Determine Plan Support
Before distributing ballots, staff will inform residents in the study area regarding the pending vote with an informational brochure. The combination of this step and the neighborhood meeting (Step 9) will help to ensure that residents of the study area are properly informed.

Ballots will be distributed to study area residents, property owners, apartment units, and businesses owners (if applicable). The ballots will include a description and map of the proposed plan indicating the type and location of devices being proposed. The ballot will also include a mail-back postcard with three questions for residents to respond to:
• Do you support the proposed plan?
• Would you oppose traffic calming devices along your property frontage? • Would you contribute to neighborhood funding for the construction of the proposed traffic calming measures?
The mail-back postcard will also provide a space for residents to write comments regarding the proposed plan.

In addition to determining the local neighborhood support, staff will provide the opportunity for residents living outside of the immediate study area to voice their opinions, such as posting a neighborhood sign with city contact information or accepting comments through e-mail or a Web site. The magnitude of support by the general public will also be considered in the plan approval, but safety issues should govern the final decision for implementation.

Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 12
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
12 – Minimum Neighborhood Support
A minimum response rate and approval rate must be obtained before staff can construct the proposed plan.

At least 50 percent of all ballots must be returned with at least 67 percent of returned ballots in favor. For example, if 100 ballots are mailed out, at least 50 must be returned with 34 in favor of the proposed plan.

Apartments present a unique situation because residents may be less likely to respond. For this reason, ballots from apartment units are not counted toward the minimum response rate, but will be counted in favor or against the proposed plan.

DES staff will count all received ballots and determine whether the minimum response rate and approval rate are satisfied. Staff will also tally the general public input. 13 – Neighborhood Support
If the minimum response rate and approval rate is satisfied, the DES will approve the proposed plan and submit the project for funding consideration.

If staff does not receive the minimum number of ballots, staff can assist the NTC in reminding neighborhood residents to submit their mail-back postcards in order to meet the minimum response rate. NTC members are encouraged to solicit input from their neighbors.

If the minimum response rate is met but the approval rate is not satisfied, the NTC has one opportunity to revise the plan. The DES staff and NTC will identify the aspects of the plan not favored by the neighborhood residents. Modifying the plan may also require soliciting a second review by the local service providers, holding a public meeting to present the revised plan, and redistributing ballots to the affected area. Before supplemental work, the DES will need to assess the department’s workload and financial needs to revise the plan.

If the minimum response rate and approval rate are satisfied, then the plan continues to the final component of the process.
14 – TTC Consideration/Recommendation to City Council
DES staff will present to the Traffic and Transportation Commission (TTC) a map of the community approved plan, describe the types and locations of devices proposed, and summarize the estimated construction costs.

If applicable, DES staff will also discuss the aesthetic improvements provided by selected measures. The TTC will make its recommendation to the City Council based on this presentation. 15 – City Council Approval of Traffic Calming and Funding Plans Similar to the TTC public meeting, DES staff will present a map of the community approved plan, describe the types and locations of devices proposed, summarize the estimated construction costs, and discuss the recommendation from the TTC. The City Council will either approve the traffic calming and funding plans to initiate construction, or recommend additional improvements and modifications to the plan – requiring a return to step 8.

Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 13
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The final component consists of preparing the design plans, constructing, and monitoring the approved traffic calming devices.
16 – Design and Consultation
Upon approval of the proposed plan, DES staff will prepare the necessary design plans for each traffic calming device and consult with local service providers if necessary. The DES may conduct field tests to verify that local service providers’ vehicles can navigate through or around the proposed designs. DES will make modifications to the approved devices as necessary. 17 – Construction
Before constructing the traffic calming devices, the DES will inform the public and local service providers of the pending traffic calming devices. The DES will also provide education materials to inform local residents how to negotiate unfamiliar devices, as necessary.

The DES or a City contractor will construct the approved traffic calming devices. The staff may decide to construct temporary devices based on previous experience. DES staff will incorporate aesthetics into the design and construction of temporary devices where possible, but these devices may not be visually appealing due to cost limitations. Aesthetics will be a higher priority for permanent devices. 18 – Monitoring and Evaluation
The DES will monitor the effectiveness and neighborhood perception of the constructed devices for three to six months. Following the monitoring period, the DES will collect traffic speed and volume data for the treated streets and quantitatively determine the effects of the plan.

After constructing the approved plan, the DES will rely on the NTC and community members for feedback on the constructed devices. Based on the NTC and/or community members’ feedback, the DES will determine the next steps. For example, the approved plan may have produced reasonable and satisfactory results, and, therefore, no further action is required.

If the approved plan has not produced reasonable and satisfactory results, the DES can recommend one of the following:
• Collect additional traffic data as deemed appropriate • Modify constructed devices as deemed appropriate
• Construct additional speed control devices as deemed appropriate If the DES determines that additional speed control devices will not adequately address the traffic-related concern, the DES can recommend the use of alternative measures or programs.

Before supplemental work begins, the DES will assess the department’s workload and financial needs to revise the plan.

Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 14
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

PROCESS FOR REMOVAL
The DES recognizes that after devices are approved and implemented, residents may wish to remove these devices. Historically, once installed, most traffic calming devices remain due to local support. This section provides guidelines for a systematic removal process.

Similar to the process for implementing neighborhood traffic calming devices, the removal process is resident-driven. The process requires that the same affected area be involved in the decision process for the removal of devices. As detailed below, greater neighborhood support is also required to verify that the neighborhood truly wants the devices removed. Residents must bear the costs for removal.

The removal process is described below, and the flowchart in Figure 2 outlines the removal process. Each step below is numbered and corresponds to the flowchart on Figure 2. 1 – Citizen Petition for Removal of Device(s)
To initiate the removal process, a resident living in the neighborhood where the device removal is being considered must submit a petition. The petition cannot be submitted within the first year of operation. The petition must be submitted with a minimum of 10 signatures from separate households. The petition must also state the location(s) of device(s) and reason for removal.

Once DES staff receives the petition, they will organize and distribute ballots for the removal process. 2 – Distribute Ballots
Ballots will be distributed to those residents, property owners, and business owners from the original study area. Although tenants or property owners may have changed, the same addresses will be provided the opportunity to participate in the approval process. The ballots will contain descriptions and maps of devices and locations proposed for removal. The ballot will also include a mail-back postcard that residents can use to indicate their support for or against the proposed removal. The ballot will also provide a space for residents to write comments regarding the removal.
3 – Required Neighborhood Support
A higher minimum response rate and approval rate must be met by those households on the treated street. A minimum of 75 percent of all ballots must be returned with at least 75 percent of all ballots received in favor of removal.

Similar to the installation process, apartment units do not count toward the minimum response rate. If the minimum response or approval rates are not met, residents must wait three years before refiling the petition (3a).
4 – Approval by DES
If the neighborhood support meets the minimum response and approval rates, the DES will calculate the estimated removal cost. The neighborhood must prove the ability to fund 100 percent of the anticipated costs.

Upon proof of financial ability, the DES can elect to authorize the removal of the specified devices (4a). A letter will be sent to all local service providers (e.g., Fire Department) indicating the location of device(s) to be removed (4b). If the full cost or removal is not provided, residents must wait three years before refiling the petition (4c).

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 2 – Process Framework Page 15
Figure 2 NTMP Process For Removal
Citizen Petition for Removal of Devices:

Stating devices to be removed and supporting signatures of 10 residents Distribute ballots: Ballots must be distributed to the same affected area and addresses that originally voted on the implementation of the plan.

Petition for
removal cannot
be resubmitted
for three years.

Approval
by DES
Required Neighborhood
Support:

Response Rate – 75%
Approval Rate – 75%
1 2
No
3a 3
Yes
No
4c 4
Yes
Removal of
Device(s) 4a
Notify Local
Service Providers
of Removal
4b
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 16
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

3. TOOLBOX
This chapter of the NTMP summarizes the “toolbox” of devices that are available to the City of Salinas and community members when developing neighborhood traffic calming plans. The “toolbox” contains 31 different devices that address neighborhood traffic related concerns such as speeding vehicles, high traffic volumes, cut-through traffic, or collisions at neighborhood intersections. The devices vary in their ability to treat various traffic related concerns. For this reason, Chapter 4, “Toolbox Guidelines,” provides guidance on selecting the most appropriate devices given the type of specific traffic-related concern and street being treated.

The “toolbox” of neighborhood traffic management devices can be grouped into three categories:
• Non-Physical devices
• Speed Control
− Narrowing devices
− Horizontal devices
− Vertical devices
• Volume Control devices
For each device in the “toolbox,” the following information relating to each device is provided:
• Description of the measure
• Photograph and/or schematic
• List of advantages and disadvantages
• Data sheet indicating speed, volume, or collision reduction potential • Estimated costs
Cost approximations are based on 2006 costs and are provided for information purposes only. Actual costs depend on many factors, including dimensions of device, construction materials, and actual construction costs.

Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 17
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

NON-PHYSICAL DEVICES
Description
Non-physical devices include any measures that do not require physical changes to the pavement section or curbs. Non-physical devices are intended to increase drivers’ awareness of surroundings and influence driver behavior without physical obstructions. DES staff will initially implement non-physical devices to treat traffic related concerns. However, these devices are not self enforcing and may have limited effectiveness as standalone devices. This category includes the following devices:
• Targeted Speed Enforcement
• Speed Radar Trailers
• Speed Feedback Sign
• Centerline/Edgeline Lane Striping
• Optical Speed Bars
• Signage
• Speed Legend
• Centerline/Edgeline Reflectors
• High Visibility Crosswalks
• Angled Parking
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 18
Targeted Speed Enforcement
City Staff or NTC members can identify locations for temporary targeted enforcement, based on personal observations and survey comments. A request can be submitted to the Salinas Police Department (SPD) for the desired enforcement. Because of limited SPD resources, the duration of the targeted enforcement may be limited. Targeted enforcement
may also be used in conjunction
with new neighborhood traffic
management devices to help
drivers become aware of the
new restrictions.

Advantages
• Inexpensive if used
temporarily
• Does not physically slow
emergency vehicles or
buses
• Quick implementation
Disadvantages
• Expensive to maintain
an increased level of
enforcement
• Effectiveness may be
temporary Approximate Cost: No additional cost.

Speed Radar Trailers
A radar trailer is a device that measures each approaching vehicle’s speed and displays it next to the legal speed limit in clear view of the driver. They can be easily placed on a street for a limited amount of time then relocated to another street, allowing a single device to be effective in many locations. Advantages • Portable
• Does not physically slow
emergency vehicles or
buses
• Quick implementation
Disadvantages
• Effectiveness may be
temporary
• Drivers may divert to
alternate streets due to
uncertainty of device
implications
• Subject to vandalism
Approximate Cost: No direct cost. (Purchase $6,000 - $12,000) City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 19
Speed Feedback Signs
Speed feedback signs perform the same functions as radar trailers but are permanent. Real-time speeds are relayed to drivers and flash when speeds exceed the limit. Speed feedback signs are typically mounted on or near speed limit signs. • Subject to vandalism
• Long-term effectiveness
uncertain
• Only effective for one
direction of travel
• May require power
source
Disadvantages
• Permanent installation
• Does not physically slow
emergency vehicles or
buses
• Real-time speed
feedback
Advantages
Approximate Cost: $7,500 - $10,000
Centerline/Edgeline Lane Striping
Lane striping can be used to create formal travel lanes, bicycle lanes, parking lanes, or edge lines. As a neighborhood traffic management measure, they are used to narrow the travel lanes for vehicles, thereby inducing drivers to lower their speeds. The past evidence on speed reductions is, however, inconclusive. • Requires regular
maintenance
• Has not been shown to
significantly reduce
travel speeds
Disadvantages
• Does not slow
emergency vehicles
• Can be used to create
bicycle lanes or
delineate on-street
parking
• Inexpensive
Advantages
Approximate Cost: $2.00 per linear foot
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 20
Optical Speed Bars
Optical speed bars are a series of pavement markings spaced at decreasing distances. They have typically been used in construction areas to provide drivers with the impression of increased speed. They do not provide long-term speed reduction benefits.

Disadvantages
• Long-term effects in
residential area
unknown
• Increases regular
maintenance
Advantages
• Inexpensive
• Does not physically slow
emergency vehicles or
buses
Approximate Cost: $1.00 per linear foot
Signage
Various signs may also be useful in alerting driver of certain conditions.

Examples include:
• Inexpensive
• Truck restrictions can
reduce through truck
traffic
• Does not slow
emergency vehicles or
buses
Disadvantages
• Requires regular
maintenance
• Speed limit signs are not
applicable because they
do not necessarily
change driver behavior
• If speed limits are set
unreasonably low,
drivers are more likely
to exceed it
Advantages
• “Cross Traffic Does Not Stop” Signs
• Truck Restriction Signs
Approximate Cost: $150 - $500 per sign
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 21
Speed Legend
Speed legends are numerals painted on the roadway indicating the current speed limit in miles per hour. They are usually placed near speed limit signposts. Speed legends can be useful in reinforcing a reduction in speed limit between one segment of a roadway and another segment.

They may also be placed at major entry points into a residential area.

Approximate Cost: $75 per location
Centerline/Edgeline Reflectors
Reflectors (also known as Botts dots or “raised pavement markers”) are small bumps lining the centerline or edgeline of a roadway. They are often used on curves where vehicles have a tendency to deviate outside of the proper lane, risking collision. Raised reflectors improve the nighttime visibility of the roadway edges and provide a low impact physical reminder to drivers if driven over.
• Helps reinforce a
change in speed limit
• Does not slow
emergency vehicles
Disadvantages
• Has not been shown to
significantly reduce
travel speeds
• Requires regular
maintenance
Advantages
• Inexpensive
• Does not physically slow
emergency vehicles or
buses
• Can help keep drivers in
the appropriate travel
lane on curves and
under low-visibility
conditions
Disadvantages
• Noise caused by tire
impact
• Requires regular
maintenance
• Has not been shown to
significantly reduce
travel speeds
Advantages
• Inexpensive
Approximate Cost: $4.50 per marker
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 22
High Visibility Crosswalks
High-visibility crosswalks use special marking patterns and raised reflectors to increase the visibility of a crosswalk. A “triple-four” marking pattern is created by painting two rows of four-foot wide rectangles, separated by four feet of unpainted space across the roadway. Raised reflectors are placed at the approach edges of these rectangles. The unpainted space along the center of the crosswalk provides an untreated path for wheelchair users and foot traffic, as markings may become slippery in rainy/wet conditions. See Appendix C for the City of Salinas Pedestrian Safety
Enhancement Devices
Policy, which
describes the City
accepted standards of
high visibility crosswalks in school zones.

Approximate Cost: $1,600 per location
Angled Parking
Angled parking reorients on-street parking spaces to a 45-degree angle, increasing the number of parking spaces and reducing the width of the roadway available for travel lanes. Angled parking is also easier for vehicles to maneuver into and out of than parallel parking.

Consequently, it
works well in
areas with high
parking demand
and turnover
rates, and where
street widths are
wider than normal
50 foot or greater
cross-sections.
• Requires more
maintenance than
normal crosswalks
Advantages
• Reduces speeds by
narrowing the travel lanes
• Increases the number of
parking spaces
• Provides for easier parking
maneuvers that take less
time than parallel parking
• Favored by businesses and
multi-family residences
Disadvantages
• Precludes the use of bike
lanes (unless roadway is
wider than 58 feet)
• Ineffective on streets with
frequent driveways
• Potential for collisions when
backing out
Advantages
• Increased visibility of
crosswalk
• Focus crossing
pedestrians at a single
location
Disadvantages
• May give pedestrians a
false sense of security,
causing them to pay less
attention to traffic
Approximate Cost: Dependent on amount of parking
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 23
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
SPEED CONTROL – NARROWING DEVICES
Description
Narrowing devices use raised islands and curb extensions to physically narrow the travel lane for motorists.

The narrowing devices in the toolbox include:
• Neckdown/Bulbout
• Center Island Narrowing/Pedestrian Refuge
• Two-Lane Choker
• One-Lane Choker
Each narrowing device is illustrated and described on the following pages.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 24
Neckdown/Bulbout
Neckdowns/bulbouts are raised curb extensions that narrow the travel lane at intersections or midblock locations. Neckdowns/bulbouts “pedestrianize” intersections by shortening the crossing distance and decreasing the curb radii, thus reducing turning vehicle speeds. Both of these effects increase pedestrian comfort and safety at the intersection.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of neckdowns between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56).

On average, neckdowns achieve a 7 percent reduction in speeds.

Approximate Cost: $6,000 – $12,000 per corner
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -7% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -10%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

NEW CONSTRUCTION

RETROFIT
Disadvantages
• Effectiveness is limited by
the absence of vertical or
horizontal deflection
• May slow right-turning
emergency vehicles
• Potential loss of on-street
parking
• May require bicyclists to briefly
merge with vehicular traffic
Advantages
• Reduces pedestrian crossing
distance and exposure to
vehicles
• Through and left-turn
movements are easily
negotiable by large vehicles
• Creates protected on-street
parking bays
• Reduces speeds (especially
right-turning vehicles) and
traffic volumes
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 25
Center Island Narrowing/Pedestrian Refuge
Center island narrowings are raised islands located along the centerline of a street that narrow the travel lanes at that location. Placed at the entrance to a neighborhood, and often combined with textured pavement, they are often called “gateways." Fitted with a gap to allow pedestrians to walk through at a crosswalk, they are often called “pedestrian refuges.” They can also be landscaped to increase visual aesthetics.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of center island narrowings between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). On average, center island narrowings achieve a 7 percent reduction in speed.

Approximate Cost: $10,000 - $15,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -7% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -10%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

UPGRADED AESTHETICS

FITTED WITH PEDESTRIAN REFUGE
• Aesthetic upgrades can
have positive aesthetic
value
• Reduces traffic volumes
if alternative routes are
available
Disadvantages
• Effect on vehicle speeds
is limited by the absence
of any vertical or
horizontal deflection
• Potential loss of onstreet parking
Advantages
• Can increase pedestrian
safety
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 26
Two-Lane Choker
Chokers are curb extensions at midblock that narrow a street. Chokers leave the street cross section with two lanes that are narrower than the normal cross section.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of twolane chokers between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). On average two-lane chokers achieve a 7 percent reduction in speed.

Approximate Cost: $7,000 - $8,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -7% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -10%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.
• Easily negotiable by
emergency vehicles and
buses
• Can have positive
aesthetic value
• Reduces both speeds
and volumes
Disadvantages
• Effect on vehicle speeds
is limited by the absence
of any vertical or
horizontal deflection
• May require bicyclists to
briefly merge with
vehicular traffic
• Loss of on-street parking
• Build-up of debris in
gutter
Advantages

RETROFIT WITH UPGRADED

AESTHETICS (COMBINED WITH HUMP)

NEW CONSTRUCTION
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 27
One-Lane Choker
One-lane chokers narrow the roadway width such that there is only enough width to allow travel in one direction at a time. They operate similarly to one-lane bridges, where cars approaching on one side must wait until all traffic in the other direction has cleared before proceeding.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of onelane chokers between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56).

On average, one-lane chokers achieve a 14 percent reduction in speed.

Approximate Cost: $8,000 - $9,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -14% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -20%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

Advantages
• Maintains two-way
vehicle access, except
at choker
• Very effective in
reducing speeds and
traffic volumes
Disadvantages
• Perceived as unsafe
because opposing traffic
is vying for space in a
single lane
• Can be used only on
low-volume, low speed
roads
• Loss of on-street parking

RETROFIT WITH

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 28
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
SPEED CONTROL – HORIZONTAL DEVICES
Description
Horizontal deflection devices use raised islands and curb extensions to physically eliminate straight-line paths along roadways and through intersections. The horizontal deflection devices in the toolbox include:
• Traffic Circle
• Roundabout (Single-Lane)
• Chicane
• Lateral Shift
• Realigned Intersection
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 29
Traffic Circle
Traffic circles are raised islands, placed in intersections, around which traffic circulates. Stop signs or yield signs can be used as traffic controls at the approaches of the traffic circle. Circles prevent drivers from speeding through intersections by impeding the straight-through movement and forcing drivers to slow down to yield. Depending upon the size of the intersection and circle, trucks may be permitted to turn left in front of the circle.

Traffic circles are raised islands, placed in intersections, around which traffic circulates. Stop signs or yield signs can be used as traffic controls at the approaches of the traffic circle. Circles prevent drivers from speeding through intersections by impeding the straight-through movement and forcing drivers to slow down to yield. Depending upon the size of the intersection and circle, trucks may be permitted to turn left in front of the circle.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of traffic circles between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). On average, traffic circles achieve an 11 percent reduction in speeds and a dramatic 71 percent decrease in collisions.

Approximate Cost: $10,000 - $25,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Impacts Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -11% Volume Impacts Reduction in Vehicles per Day -5%
Safety Impacts Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions -71% Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

Disadvantages
• If not designed properly,
difficult for emergency
vehicles or large trucks
to travel around
• Must be designed so
that the circulating traffic
does not encroach on
crosswalks
• Potential loss of onstreet parking
Advantages
• Very effective in
moderating speeds and
improving safety
• Can have positive
aesthetic value

STANDARD RIVER ROCK TREATMENT

WITH UPGRADED AESTHETICS AESTHETICS
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 30
Roundabout (Single-Lane)
Like traffic circles, roundabouts require traffic to circulate counterclockwise around a center island. But unlike circles, roundabouts are used on higher volume streets to allocate right-of-way among competing movements. They are found primarily on collector streets, often substituting for traffic signals. They are larger than neighborhood traffic circles, have raised splitter islands to channel approaching traffic to the right, and do not have stop signs. Due to large amount of required right-of-way and construction costs, roundabouts may be most appropriate for new developments.

Roundabouts have an insignificant effect in reducing traffic speeds, but serve to allocate right-of-way at an intersection similar to a traffic signal.

On average, roundabouts can reduce the average number of accidents up to 33 percent when compared to a signalized intersection.

Approximate Cost: Varies by intersection and whether new construction or a retrofit.

Measured Effectiveness
Speed Impacts Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Impacts Reduction in Vehicles per Day I/D
Safety Impacts Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions -15% to -33% Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2000.

Advantages
• Enhanced vehicle safety
compared to a traffic signal or
stop sign
• Minimizes queuing at
approaches to the intersection
• Less expensive to operate
than traffic signals
• Can have positive aesthetic
value
• Shorter pedestrian crossing
distance
Disadvantages
• May require major
reconstruction of an existing
intersection
• Loss of on-street parking
• Continuous flow of traffic limits
opportunity for pedestrians to
cross (compared to signal)
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 31
Chicane
Chicanes are curb extensions that alternate from one side of the street to the other, forming S-shaped curves. Chicanes can also be created by alternating on-street parking between one side of the road and the other.

Each parking bay can be created either by restriping the roadway or by installing raised center islands at each end, creating a protected parking area. Chicanes have limited effectiveness in reducing traffic speeds and volumes as compared to other devices. Little data has been collected to predict the reduction in speed, traffic volumes, or collisions, and use of this device may not result in significant decreases. Resources permitting, DES staff can collect before and after data to determine the effectiveness of chicanes.

Approximate Cost: $8,000 - $14,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Impacts Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Impacts Reduction in Vehicles per Day I/D
Safety Impacts Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient data to predict reduction effect. • Must be designed carefully
to discourage drivers from
deviating out of the
appropriate lane
• Curb realignment and
landscaping can be costly,
especially if there are
drainage issues
• Loss of on-street parking
Advantages
• Discourages high speeds
by forcing horizontal
deflection
• Easily negotiable by
emergency vehicles and
buses
Disadvantages

RETROFIT WITH

STANDARD TREATMENT

RETROFIT WITH

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 32
Lateral Shift
Lateral shifts are curb extensions on otherwise straight streets that cause a shift in the travel. Lateral shifts, with just the right degree of deflection, can be effective. However, lateral shifts have had limited use in the United States, and, consequently, insufficient data prevents accurate prediction of speed reduction and traffic volumes.

Approximate Cost: Dependent on size of offset and length of transition
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day I/D
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect. • Must be designed carefully
to discourage drivers from
deviating out of the
appropriate lane
Advantages
• Can accommodate higher
traffic volumes than many
other neighborhood traffic
management measures
• Easily negotiable by large
emergency vehicles and
buses
Disadvantages
• Potential for loss of onstreet parking
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 33
Realigned Intersection
Realigned intersections provide deflection on an otherwise straight approach of a T-intersection. By providing deflection in the form of a curb extension or realignment, drivers are required to slow through the intersection or come to a stop before turning.

Little data has been collected to predict the reduction in speed, traffic volumes, or collisions, and use of this device may not result in significant decreases. Resources permitting, DES staff can collect before and after data to determine the effectiveness of realigned intersections.

Approximate Cost: $15,000 - $30,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day I/D
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect. • Modifying curbs or
drainage can be costly
• Acquiring additional rightof-way can be costly
Disadvantages
Advantages
• Can be effective at
reducing speeds at
T-intersections
• Can be effective in
increasing safety at
T-intersections
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 34
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
SPEED CONTROL – VERTICAL DEVICES
Description
Vertical deflection devices use variations in pavement height and alternative paving materials to physically reduce travel speeds. The design speeds for these devices are approximately 15 to 20 mph depending on the device. The vertical deflection devices in the toolbox include:
• Speed Hump
• Speed Lump
• Speed Cushion
• Speed Table
• Raised Crosswalk
• Raised Intersection
• Textured/Colored Pavement
• Rumble Strip
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 35
Speed Hump
Speed humps are rounded raised areas placed across the road. They are generally 12 feet long (in the direction of travel), 3 to 3 ½ inches high, parabolic in shape, and have a design speed of 15 to 20 mph. They are usually constructed with a taper on each side to allow unimpeded drainage between the hump and curb. When placed on a street with rolled curbs or no curbs, bollards are placed at the ends of the speed hump to discourage vehicles from veering outside of the travel lane to avoid the device.

The magnitude of reduction in speed is dependent on the spacing of speed humps between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56).

On average, speed humps achieve a 22 percent reduction in speeds.

Approximate Cost: $2,000 - $3,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Impacts Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -22% Volume Impacts Reduction in Average Daily Traffic -18%
Safety Impacts Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions -13% Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.
• Signs may be
unwelcome by adjacent
residents
• Increased noise for
nearby residents
• Relatively easy for
bicyclists to cross
• Very effective in slowing
travel speeds
Disadvantages
• Causes a “rough ride”
for drivers, and can
discomfort people with
certain skeletal
disabilities
• Slows emergency
vehicles and buses
• Aesthetics
Advantages
• Relatively inexpensive
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 36
Speed Lump
The speed lump is a variation on the speed hump, adding two wheel cutouts designed to allow large vehicles, such as emergency vehicles and buses, to pass with minimal impedance. The design limits passenger cars and most SUVs from fully passing through the cut-outs, but allows one set of wheels to pass through the cut-out while the other set is required to travel over the lump.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of speed lumps between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). Speed lumps have a similar reduction in speeds when compared to speed humps.

Approximate Cost: $2,000 - $3,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points Volume Reduction Reduction in Average Daily Traffic
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D, but
comparable to
speed humps
Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect. • Passenger vehicles with
wide wheel base can
pass through the lump
using the wheel cut-outs
• Aesthetics
• Signs may be
unwelcome by adjacent
residents
• Increased noise for
nearby residents
Disadvantages
Advantages
• Effective in reducing
speeds
• Maintains rapid
emergency response
times
• Relatively easy for
bicyclists to cross
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 37
Speed Cushion
Speed cushions are constructed from durable recycled rubber and are a variation of the speed lump. These prefabricated devices consistently have a more uniform shape than asphalt humps. Speed cushions provide wheel gaps for emergency vehicles and buses, and can be arranged to fit any street width. They can also be easily relocated if needed.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of speed cushions between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). On average, speed cushions achieve a 14 percent reduction in speeds.

Approximate Cost: $4,500 - $6,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -14% Volume Reduction Reduction in Average Daily Traffic
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions Comparable
to Speed
Lumps
Source: City of Portland, Rubber Speed Bump Research, 1995.

Advantages
• Provides a more
consistent ride than
asphalt humps
• Can be used as a
temporary device during
a testing phase
• Reduces impacts to
emergency vehicles due
to cut-outs
• Easily accommodates
street resurfacing
Disadvantages
• Aesthetics
• Signs may be
unwelcome by adjacent
residents
• Increased noise for
nearby residents
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 38
Speed Table
Speed tables are flat-topped speed humps approximately 22 feet long. They are typically long enough for the entire wheelbase of a passenger car to rest on top. Their long, flat fields, plus ramps that are more gently sloped than speed humps, give speed tables higher design speeds than humps, and, thus, may be more appropriate for streets with higher ambient speeds. Brick or other textured materials improve the appearance of speed tables, draw attention to them, and may enhance safety and speed reduction.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of speed tables between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). On average, speed tables achieve an 18 percent reduction in speeds.

Approximate Cost: $4,000 for basic treatment
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Impacts Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -18% Volume Impacts Reduction in Vehicles per Day -12%
Safety Impacts Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions -45% Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.
• Signs may be
unwelcome by adjacent
residents
• Increased noise for
nearby residents
Advantages
• Smoother on large
vehicles (such as fire
trucks) than speed
humps
• Effective in reducing
speeds, though not to
the extent of speed
humps
Disadvantages
• Aesthetics
• Textured materials, if
used, can be expensive

STANDARD TREATMENT

UPGRADED AESTHETICS

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 39
Raised Crosswalk
Raised crosswalks are speed tables striped with crosswalk markings and signage to channelize pedestrian crossings, providing pedestrians with a level street crossing. Also, by raising the level of the crossing, pedestrians are more visible to approaching motorists.

The magnitude of speed reduction is dependent on the spacing of raised crosswalks between points that require drivers to slow (see page 56). On average, raised crosswalks achieve an 18 percent reduction in speeds.

Approximate Cost: $5,000 for basic treatment
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Impacts Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -18% Volume Impacts Reduction in Vehicles per Day -12%
Safety Impacts Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions -45% Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

STANDARD TREATMENT

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
• Textured pavement can
increase noise to
adjacent residents
• Signs may be
unwelcome by adjacent
residents
Advantages
• Improve safety for both
vehicles and pedestrians
• Aesthetic upgrades can
have positive aesthetic
value
• Effective in reducing
speeds, though not to
the extent of speed
humps
Disadvantages
• Textured materials, if
used, can be expensive
• Impact to drainage
needs to be considered

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 40
Raised Intersection
Raised intersections are flat raised areas covering entire intersections, with ramps on all approaches. They usually rise to sidewalk level, or slightly below, to provide a “lip” for the visually impaired. By modifying the level of the intersection, the crosswalks are more readily perceived by motorists to be a pedestrian area. They are particularly useful where loss of on-street parking due to other traffic calming devices is considered unacceptable. Raised intersections are ineffective at reducing traffic speeds or volumes.

Approximate Cost: Varies based on size of intersection
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -1% Volume Reduction Reduction in Average Daily Traffic I/D Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
• Expensive, particularly
as a retrofit
• Textured pavement can
increase noise to
adjacent residents
Advantages
• Can improve safety for
pedestrians and
motorists
• Aesthetic upgrades can
have positive aesthetic
value
• Can treat two streets at
once
Disadvantages
• Less effective in
reducing vehicle speeds
than speed humps and
speed tables

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 41
Textured/Colored Pavement
Textured colored pavement includes the use of stamped pavement (asphalt) or alternate paving materials to create an uneven surface for vehicles to traverse. Textured pavement may have limited effectiveness as a standalone device and should be used to supplement other devices such as raised crosswalks or center median islands. Little data has been collected to predict the reduction in speed, traffic volumes, or collisions, and use of this device may not result in significant decreases. Resources permitting, DES staff can collect before and after data to determine the effectiveness of textured pavement.

Approximate Cost: $8.00 per square foot
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Reduction Reduction in Average Daily Traffic I/D Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect. • Can be uncomfortable
for bicyclists or
handicapped.
• Textured pavement can
increase noise to
adjacent properties
Advantages
• Can reduce vehicle
speeds
• Aesthetic upgrades can
have positive value
• Placed at an
intersection, it can slow
two streets at once
Disadvantages
• Expensive, varying by
materials used
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 42
Rumble Strip
Rumble strips are closely spaced raised pavement markers at regular intervals on the roadway that create noise and vibration to the vehicle. Rumble strips can be used to warn drivers of a change in speed limit, leading up to a residential or school area, and upcoming stop sign or intersection. Rumble strips should be used only in areas where the noise impact would be minimal. Little data has been collected to predict the reduction in speed, traffic volumes, or collisions, and use of this device may not result in significant decreases.

Resources permitting, DES staff can collect before and after data to determine the effectiveness of rumble strips.

Approximate Cost: $500 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Reduction Reduction in Average Daily Traffic I/D Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect. • Maintenance of raised
pavement markers
• Aesthetics
• Uncomfortable for
motorcyclists and
bicyclists
Advantages
• Relatively inexpensive
• Can be effective in
slowing travel speeds in
specific locations
Disadvantages
• Raised pavement
markers can be slippery
when wet
• Increased noise in
vicinity of rumble strips
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 43
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
VOLUME CONTROL – DEVICES
Description
Diversion devices use raised islands and curb extensions to physically preclude particular vehicle movements, such as left-turn or through movements, usually at an intersection. These devices can be considered only after all other devices have been attempted and failed to resolve the traffic problem. The diversion devices in the toolbox include:
• Full Closure
• Partial Closure
• Diagonal Diverter
• Median Barrier
• Forced Turn Island
• Turn-Movement Restriction
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 44
Full Closure
Full street closures are barriers placed across a street to close the street completely to through traffic, usually leaving only sidewalks or bicycle paths open. The barriers may consist of landscaped islands, walls, gates, side-by-side bollards, or any other obstructions that leave an opening smaller than the width of a passenger car. Emergency vehicles can be accommodated via removable bollards or similar devices.

Approximate Cost: $50,000 - $100,000 per location (dependent on size and treatment)
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -44%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.
• Able to maintain
pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity
Disadvantages
• Requires statutory actions
for public street closures
• Causes circuitous routes
for local residents
• Diverts traffic to another
street
• Delays for emergency
services unless through
access is provided
• May limit access to
businesses
• Cost
Advantages
• Very effective in reducing
cut-through traffic volumes
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 45
Partial Closure
Half street closures are barriers that block travel in one direction for a short distance on otherwise two-way streets. Half closures are the most common volume control measure after full street closures. Half closures are often used in sets to make travel through neighborhoods with a grid street pattern circuitous rather than direct.

Approximate Cost: $5,000 - $7,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -19% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -42%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

STANDARD TREATMENT

WITH BICYCLE LANE
• Able to maintain two-way
bicycle access
• Effective in reducing traffic
volumes
Disadvantages
• Causes circuitous routes
for local residents
• May limit access to
businesses
• Drivers can bypass the
barrier
Advantages

UPGRADED TREATMENT

WITHOUT BICYCLE LANE
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 46
Diagonal Diverter
Diagonal diverters are barriers placed diagonally across an intersection, blocking through movement. Like half closures, diagonal diverters are usually staggered to create circuitous routes through neighborhoods.

Approximate Cost: $20,000 - $25,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points -4% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -35%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

STANDARD TREATMENT

WITH MINOR LANDSCAPING TREATMENT
• Able to maintain full
pedestrian and bicycle
access
• Reduces traffic volumes
Disadvantages
• Causes circuitous routes
for local residents
• Delays for emergency
services
• May be expensive
• May require reconstruction
of corner curbs
Advantages

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 47
Median Barrier
Median barriers are raised islands that are located along the centerline of a street and continue through an intersection so as to block through (and left-turn) movement at a cross street.

Approximate Cost: $15,000 - $20,000 per 100 feet (dependent on length and width)
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -31%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

STANDARD TREATMENT

UPGRADED AESTHETICS
Disadvantages
• Requires available street
width on the major street
• Limits turns to and from
the side streets and
driveways for local
residents and emergency
services
Advantages
• Can improve safety at an
intersection of a local
street and a major street
by prohibiting critical
through or left-turn
movements
• Can reduce traffic volumes
on a cut-through route that
crosses a major street
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 48
Forced-Turn Island
Forced turn islands are raised islands that prohibit certain movements on approaches to an intersection.

Approximate Cost: $3,000 - $5,000 per location
Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D% Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day -31%
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Source: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 2000.

BASIC TREATMENT • If designed improperly,
drivers can maneuver
around the island to make
an illegal movement
• May divert a traffic
problem to a different
street
Advantages
• Can improve safety at an
intersection by prohibiting
critical turning movements
• Reduces traffic volumes
Disadvantages

STANDARD TREATMENT
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 3 – Toolbox Page 49
Turn-Movement Restrictions
Turn movement restrictions involve the use of signs to prevent undesired turning movements without the use of physical devices. The restrictions may generally apply to turning movements in or out of a residential street to a larger street. The turn movement restrictions may be permanent or only during peak commute hours.

Measured Effectiveness
Speed Reduction Reduction in 85th Percentile Speeds between Slow Points I/D Volume Reduction Reduction in Vehicles per Day I/D
Safety Reduction Reduction in Average Annual Number of Collisions I/D Note: I/D = Insufficient Data to predict reduction effect.

Approximate Cost: $150 per sign (enforcement may be necessary to be effective) Disadvantages
• Restrictions apply to
resident and non-residents
• Requires enforcement
during time of restriction to
be effective
• May divert a traffic
problem to another street
Advantages
• Can reduce cut-through
traffic at specific times of
day
• Can increase safety at an
intersection by prohibiting
certain turning movements
• Low cost
Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 50
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

4. TOOLBOX GUIDELINES
This section provides guidance on selecting the most appropriate neighborhood traffic management measure for a specific problem. This involves narrowing the toolbox of neighborhood traffic management measures to those that will most closely target the key traffic issue; are appropriate for the existing street characteristics; and are compatible with the traffic volumes, geometrics, and adjacent land uses near the given location.

When the list has been narrowed, devices should be considered that are likely supported by affected residents. Finally, the selected devices need to be placed in a manner that will produce the desired results.

GUIDELINES
Step 1 – Identify Traffic Related Concern
The first task when selecting the most appropriate traffic calming device is to narrow the field of devices to those that address the primary traffic concern. The most common traffic related concerns are:
• Speeding – motor vehicle speeds are too high
• Traffic Volumes – motor vehicle usage levels (all trips or non-local trips only) are too high • Safety – locations with higher occurrences of collisions, higher concentrations of bicyclists and pedestrians, or potential hazards (e.g., sight distance limitations) Each device in the toolbox is appropriate to a different subset of the above traffic-related concerns. Table 1 summarizes the appropriateness of each device.

Non-Physical Measures
The first solutions to consider should be non-physical measures, such as signs and markings, since these can devices increase driver awareness, are relatively inexpensive, and are the least intrusive to residents.

Speed Control Measures
Speed control measures can address any of the major problem types:
• Narrowing Measures – Narrowing devices, such as neckdowns, center island narrowings, or chokers, are less obtrusive than other devices and can be more aesthetically pleasing if residents opt to fund upgraded landscaping and assume the maintenance cost and responsibilities. • Horizontal Measures – Horizontal deflection devices, such as chicanes and traffic circles, are more intrusive but also more effective than narrowings because they force vehicles to navigate horizontally around physical objects. Residents can also elect to fund upgraded landscaping. • Vertical Measures – Vertical deflection devices provide the greatest speed reduction, and consequently have the greatest potential to slow emergency response vehicles, buses, and trucks.

Therefore, the placement of these devices should be carefully considered, especially to limit any potential impact on emergency vehicles or transit access.

Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 51
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Volume Control Measures
If speed-control measures fail to produce desired results, then diversion measures, such as street closures or forced turns may be considered. These devices redirect traffic to an adjacent street, and, therefore, should be considered after all other measures fail to produce the desired results. Volume control measures limit through traffic or turning movements at specific locations for both residents and non-residents. The full effect of the traffic diversion should be investigated before device implementation.

Step 2 – Identify Location Type
The appropriate device for a given problem is a function of the location (midblock or at an intersection).

Special consideration will be given to streets used by the City of Salinas Fire Department or ambulance services as primary emergency response routes. Appendix D presents the City of Salinas Primary Fire Response routes with functional roadway classifications. Generally, traffic calming of emergency response routes is limited to non-physical treatments on major arterials; however, there are certain conditions for which traffic calming measures may be appropriate on emergency response routes classified as minor arterials and collectors.

Table 2 indicates the location(s) where each type of traffic calming measure is applicable.

Step 3 – Consider Street Classification, Location, and Other Constraints The third step in determining the most appropriate device is to consider how each device is compatible with the street classification, traffic volumes, posted speeds, and special roadway users. Table 3 illustrates where each device is appropriate with certain constraints.

EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON
When more than one traffic calming device is available, decision-makers should understand the levels of effectiveness for each device to better determine which device will have the greatest effect in meeting the specified objective(s). Table 4 summarizes the effectiveness data (including excluded devices) that have been compiled for each of the neighborhood traffic management measures in the toolbox. These data are averages and the actual effectiveness will vary based on site-specific circumstances, such as proximity to major roads and the availability of alternate routes.

PLACING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Strategies for the specific placement of devices differ depending on whether the concern is speed-control, volume-control, or safety related. The placement of devices is described below.

Placing Speed-Control Measures
Where feasible, neighborhood traffic management measures should be spaced in such a way to achieve the following two design speeds:
• Slow-Point 85th Percentile Design Speed: the speed that 85 percent of vehicles are traveling less than, when they are crossing a neighborhood traffic management device; the target slow-point speed is defined as 5 mph below the posted speed limit.
• Midpoint 85th Percentile Design Speed: the speed that 85 percent of vehicles are traveling less than, when they are halfway between a traffic calming device or other roadway feature that requires Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 52
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
significant slowing (e.g., stop sign or curve). The target midpoint speed is defined as 5 mph above the posted speed limit.

Figure 3 illustrates how to estimate the midpoint speed.

TABLE 1

APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENTS BY TRAFFIC RELATED CONCERN
Type of Traffic Related Concern
Types of Measures Speeding Traffic
Volume
Vehicle
Collisions
Pedestrian
Safety
Noise
Non-Physical Control Measures
Targeted Speed Enforcement z {
Speed Radar Trailer z { { {
Speed Feedback Sign z { { {
Centerline/Edgeline Lane Striping z { { { {
Optical Speed Bars { { { {
Signage z { {
Speed Legend z { { { {
Centerline/Edgeline Reflectors { { z {
High Visibility Cross Walks { { z {
Angled Parking z { { {
Speed Control – Narrowing Measures
Neckdown/Bulbout z { z {
Center Island Narrowing/
Pedestrian Refuge z z {
Two-Lane Choker z { { {
One-Lane Choker z { { {
Speed Control - Horizontal Measures
Traffic Circle z z {
Roundabout (Single-Lane) z { z
Chicane z { { {
Lateral Shift { { {
Realigned Intersection z { {
Speed Control – Vertical Measures
Speed Hump z z ³
Speed Lump z z ³
Speed Cushion z z ³
Speed Table z ³
Raised Crosswalk z z ³
Raised Intersection z z ³
Textured/Colored Pavement { { ³
Rumble Strips { { { ³
Volume Control Measures
Full Closure z z { { {
Partial Closure z z { { {
Diagonal Diverter z z { { {
Median Barrier { z { {
Forced Turn Island { z { {
Turn-Movement Restriction { z { {
Key: z = Strongly Appropriate ³ = Inappropriate/Counterproductive = Moderately Appropriate { = Indifferent
Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 53
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
TABLE 2

APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENTS BY LOCATION
Type of Measure MidBlock Intersection
Study
Perimeter Collectors
Transit
Routes
Non-Physical Control Measures
Targeted Speed
Enforcement z z z z z
Speed Radar Trailer z z z z z
Speed Feedback Sign z z z z z
Centerline/Edgeline Lane
Striping z ³ ³ z z
Optical Speed Bars z ³ ³ z z
Signage z z z z z
Speed Legend z z z z z
Centerline/Edgeline
Reflectors
On
Curves ³ ³ z z
High Visibility Crosswalks z Unsignalized
Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersections
z z
Angled Parking z ³ ³ z {
Speed Control – Narrowing Measures
Neckdown/Bulbout ³ z z z z
Center Island Narrowing/
Pedestrian Refuge z z z z z
Two-Lane Choker z ³ ³ z* z
One-Lane Choker z ³ ³ ³ ³
Speed Control – Horizontal Measures
Traffic Circle ³ z { z z
Roundabout (Single-Lane) ³ { { z z
Chicane z ³ ³ z z
Lateral Shift z ³ ³ z z
Realigned Intersection ³ Unsignalized
Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersections z z
Speed Control – Vertical Measures
Speed Hump z ³ ³ {* ³
Speed Lump z ³ ³ { z
Speed Cushion z ³ ³ { z
Speed Table z ³ ³ { {
Raised Crosswalk z { { { {
Raised Intersection ³ z z { {
Textured/Colored Pavement z z z z z
Rumble Strips z z { z z
Volume Control Measures
Full Closure ³ z z {* ³
Partial Closure ³ z z z z
Diagonal Diverter ³ z ³ {* ³
Median Barrier ³ { z {* ³
Forced Turn Island ³ { z { {
Turn-Movement Restriction ³ { z { {
Key: * Not generally acceptable for Primary Fire Response Routes – See Appendix D for specific streets. ³ = Never applicable. { = Seldom, except in some cases. z = Generally applicable.

Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 54
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
TABLE 3

APPLICABILITY BY STREET TYPE
Roadway Classification Types of Measures Local Collector Other Considerations Non-Physical Control Measures
Targeted Speed Enforcement
Speed Radar Trailer
Speed Feedback Sign No
Centerline/Edgeline Lane
Striping
Optical Speed Bars No Limitations with respect to ADT or Speed None Signage
Speed Legend
Centerline/Edgeline Reflectors
High Visibility Crosswalks
Angled Parking ADT <4,000; Width ≥48 feet: Speed Limit
≤30 mph
Speed Control – Narrowing Measures
Neckdown/Bulbout
Center Island Narrowing/
Pedestrian Refuge
Two-Lane Choker
ADT ≤ 20,000; Speed Limit ≤ 35 None
One-Lane Choker ADT ≤ 3,000;
Speed Limit ≤ 30 No DES must review sight distance.

Speed Control – Horizontal Measures
Traffic Circle Daily Entering Volume <10,000; Speed Limit ≤ 35 mph
Roundabout (Single-Lane) No
Daily Entering
Volume <16,000;
Speed Limit ≤ 45 mph
Grades ≤ 4%
Chicane No ADT ≤ 5,000; Speed
Limit ≤ 35 Grades ≤ 8%
Lateral Shift No ADT ≤ 20,000; Speed
Limit ≤ 35
Realigned Intersection Daily Entering Volume <5,000; Speed Limit ≤ 35 mph
None
Speed Control – Vertical Measures
Speed Hump
Speed Lump
Speed Cushion
ADT<4,000;
Speed Limit ≤ 30mph
Speed Table 1
Raised Crosswalk ADT<7,500: Speed Limit 30 mph or 35 mph Raised Intersection No
Grades ≤ 8%
Textured/Colored Pavement 2 No Yes Noise impact to adjacent residential units
Rumble Strips 2 Yes Yes Noise impact to adjacent
residential units
Notes: 1 Not appropriate for streets without curbs, gutter, or sidewalks. 2 Use of this device should be limited to locations where noise impacts would be minimal.

Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 55
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)

APPLICABILITY BY STREET TYPE
Roadway Classification Types of Measures Local Collector Other Considerations Volume Control Measures
Full Closure No
Partial Closure
Diagonal Diverter
Median Barrier
Forced Turn Island
Turn-Movement Restriction
≥ 25% non-local traffic.

Evaluation should be conducted to
determine effects of
diverted traffic to alternate routes
None
Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 56
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
TABLE 4

QUANTITATIVE IMPACTS OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES Effectiveness
85th Percentile Change Vehicles
Per Day
Average Annual Collisions
Types of Measures
Before After Change Percent
Change Change Percent
Change Before After Change Percent
Change
Non-Physical Measures
All Non-Physical
Measures Limited Effectiveness as stand alone device
Speed Control – Vertical Measures
Entry Feature I/D I/D I/D
Speed Hump 35.0 27.4 -7.6 -22% -355 -18% 2.62 2.29 -0.33 -13% Speed Lump Comparable to speed hump but I/D
Speed Cushion1 Comparable to speed
hump but I/D
-14% Comparable to speed hump but I/D
Split Speed Hump 37 32 -5 -14% I/D I/D
Speed Table
Raised Crosswalk 36.7 30.1 -6.6 -18% -415 -12% 6.71 3.66 -3.05 -45% Raised Intersection 34.6 34.3 -0.3 -1% Ineffective
Textured Pavement Limited Effectiveness as stand alone device Rumble Strips I/D and Limited Effectiveness
Speed Control – Narrowing Measures
Neckdown/Bulbout
Center Island
Narrowing
Two-Lane Choker

34.9 32.3 -2.6 -7% -293 -10%
One-Lane Choker I/D -14% I/D -20%
I/D
Speed Control – Horizontal Measures
Traffic Circle 34.2 30.3 -3.9 -11% -293 -5% 2.19 0.64 -1.55 -71% Roundabout
(Single-Lane) Insignificant Speed Effects Insignificant Volume Effects Not Recorded -15%
to -
33%
Chicane I/D and Limited Effectiveness
Lateral Shift Ineffective
Realigned
Intersection I/D I/D I/D
Volume Control Measures
Full Closure I/D I/D I/D I/D -671 -44% I/D
Partial Closure 32.3 26.3 -6.0 -19% -1,611 -42% I/D
Diagonal Diverter 29.3 27.9 -1.4 -4% -501 -35% I/D
Median Barrier
Forced Turn Island
Turn-Movement
Restrictions

I/D I/D I/D
Stop Signs
Stop Signs I/D I/D I/D
Notes: I/D = Insufficient Data
Source: Traffic Calming State-of-the Practice (Ewing, 1999) 1City of Portland, Rubber Speed Bump Research, 1995
Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 57
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Figure 3 Estimating Midpoint Speed
In mathematical terms, the following exponential function gives the relationship between midpoint speed and spacing of slow points:
85th
midpoint (mph) = 85thslow point (mph) + (85thstreet (mph) –85thslow point (mph)) * 0.56 * (1 – e –0.004 * spacing (ft.)) where;
85th
midpoint = resulting 85th percentile speed at midpoint after treatment; 85th
slow point = estimated 85th percentile speed at the slow point after treatment; 85th
street = 85th percentile speed of street before treatment; spacing = distance in feet between two devices.

When placing speed-control measures, use the above formula to test proposed spacings to determine whether the estimated midpoint speeds would meet the targeted midpoint speed.

Example (speed humps on street with starting speed of 32 mph):

Where spacing is 350 feet:
85th
midpoint (mph) = 15 mph + ((32 mph – 15 mph) * 0.56 * (1 – e –0.004 * 350 feet)) 85th
midpoint (mph) = 22 mph
Where spacing is 750 feet:
85th
midpoint (mph) = 15 mph + ((32 mph – 15 mph) * 0.56 * (1 – e –0.004 * 750 feet)) 85th
midpoint (mph) = 24 mph
The spacing of neighborhood traffic management measures directly affects the midpoint speeds: the farther apart they are, the higher the midpoint speed. In general, speed control measures placed 350 to 750 feet from another slow-point can result in speed reductions similar to those indicated in Table 4. Measures placed at intervals of less that 350 feet can become a nuisance to drivers, and measures placed greater than 750 feet apart decrease the ability to slow speeds to the target midpoint speed. In addition, vertical measures should be place a minimum of 250 feet from an adjacent intersection.

Placing Volume-Control Measures
Neighborhood traffic management devices intended to divert traffic can be located either external or internal to the neighborhood.
• Gateway Measures – Volume-control measures placed at entrances or gateways to neighborhoods can be more effective in reducing volumes because drivers encounter these devices upon entering a neighborhood, which may deter future use. However, these measures can also cause local traffic to take more circuitous paths than internal measures would. • Internal Measures – When placed within a neighborhood, measures have a less direct effect on nonlocal traffic. First-time attempts to travel through the neighborhood will occur more frequently, and drivers will seek alternative routes within the neighborhood. However, this type of placement can cause less of an inconvenience to local traffic.

Chapter 4 – Toolbox Guidelines Page 58
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Placing Safety Measures
The placement of safety-oriented neighborhood traffic management devices is dependent on the particulars of the traffic-related concern and on the characteristics of the selected neighborhood traffic management device.

For example, if the traffic related concern involves pedestrian safety, then the solution – a raised crosswalk, for example – should be placed at a location where it is likely to be heavily used by pedestrians.

Chapter 5 – New Development Guidelines Page 59
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

5. NEW DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
Proposed developments can benefit from neighborhood traffic management strategies. Developers can anticipate and prevent concerns about speeding and traffic volumes by reviewing neighborhood plans and proposing refinements to reduce or avoid future traffic-related concerns. In addition, neighborhood traffic management measures incorporated with project construction often receive greater acceptance than a retrofit approach. Traffic calming measures can be included as off-site mitigation measures for infill or redevelopment projects that are surrounded by existing developments that may be impacted by project traffic.

This information in this chapter is a tool for staff and project designers to identify potential problem areas and suggested remedies. Anticipating future problems and remedies is a subjective activity, not conducive to absolute standards. However, it may be appropriate to incorporate general language into City documents regarding the role of staff in identifying potential neighborhood traffic problems and suggesting remedies.

In most cases, staff and the developer’s representatives should be able to identify mutually acceptable neighborhood traffic management features, which are then incorporated into the proposed plans. However, in some cases, staff may need to develop conditions-of-approval that can be discussed, modified, and/or approved by the relevant governing bodies.

SUGGESTED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
As part of the City of Salinas development review process, City staff may consider the need for neighborhood traffic management measures within the proposed development or off-site. New development and redevelopment projects may be required to design, build, and maintain traffic calming features as part of the development project through the subdivision improvement agreement, development agreement, homeowners’ association, and other development-related mechanisms.

The City’s process of reviewing new residential subdivisions varies and is dependent on the decision type.

Information contained in the development application determines the permit type and subsequent process.

Although the processes differ, they all require staff review after the submission of the plans. At this point, City staff may recommend or condition the inclusion of traffic calming measures.

The toolbox and application guidelines contained in other sections of this document should provide staff and developer representatives with both ideas and guidance on selecting the most appropriate treatments for the identified problem.

The following flowchart is a suggested approach for City staff during the development review process.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 5 – New Development Guidelines Page 60
Figure 4 New Development Review Process
Receipt of Developer Plans
Are projectgenerated
neighborhood
issues likely?
(speeding, volume or
pedestrian conflicts)?
Use street guidelines or traffic
calming toolbox to recommend
appropriate solutions.

Recommend changes to address
issues.

Are
reductions in
conflict
areas
acceptable?
Continue Standard
Review Process
Submit to local service providers
(Fire, Police, Transit, Schools) for
review.

Are changes
acceptable
to local
service
providers?
Yes
No
No
Yes No
Chapter 5 – New Development Guidelines Page 61
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PRACTICES
During the development review process, staff should review the street network and intersection traffic controls to determine areas of potential speeding, excessive volume on residential streets, or pedestrian conflict areas. Where appropriate, developers should be required to incorporate traffic calming measures into their development plan. The process for reviewing street and lot plans for new developments and prescribing refinements may include the following, at staff discretion:
• Traffic Volumes – Estimate the average daily traffic (ADT) on residential roadways within and surrounding the proposed project.
− If traffic volumes on residential streets are projected to be less than 1,500 vehicles per day (vpd), then no action is needed, nor will it be taken.
− If the projected traffic volume on a residential street is 1,500 - 3,000 vpd, then consider traffic calming treatments depending upon the context (such as area history, resident expectations, or magnitude of change).
− For projected volumes of above 3,000 vpd on a residential street, consider as a priority incorporate traffic calming measures to lessen the impact. • Traffic Speeds – Identify potential speeding concerns on new streets and adjacent existing streets.

Potential problem areas may include:
− Streets with unimpeded block lengths (i.e. slow points) greater than 600 feet between traffic control or traffic calming devices, or as determined by staff. − Areas where roadway grades may increase the potential for speeding, as determined by staff. − Areas with potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, such as schools, parks, or community centers. − Areas with design attributes that encourage speeding, such as wide travel lane width, absence of on-street parking lane, absence of a bike lane, and long block lengths. • Street Layout – Staff may request street design and layout modifications if an area is likely to experience cut-through traffic.
• Adjacent Neighborhoods – Consider traffic calming measures in new developments where adjacent neighborhoods include traffic calming, as determined by staff. • Traffic Calming Plan – Based on the size and nature of the proposed development, staff will determine if a traffic calming plan is necessary. As described above, a traffic calming plan should be developed when the proposed street layout cannot be modified in such a way that will eliminate foreseeable traffic problems. The applicant’s representative should develop the traffic calming plan with DES oversight.

DESIGNING STREET NETWORKS
Neighborhood traffic management measures have traditionally been installed as retrofit measures in existing neighborhoods in response to a particular traffic concern. The guidelines below describe some common street design features and their propensity to lead to neighborhood traffic management concerns such as speeding and cut-through traffic. The guidelines should assist developers in laying out streets in new residential developments and staff in reviewing them pursuant to the process described above. This chapter Chapter 5 – New Development Guidelines Page 62
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008

is by no means comprehensive on the layout of new residential streets. For detailed information on street design and layout, refer to the following City of Salinas documents:
• City of Salinas General Plan, September 2002
• City of Salinas City Code – Section 31-804.5, November 2006 • Standard Specifications, Design Standards, and Standard Plans – Standard Plan No. 3, 2004 The following documents provide supplemental readings on the subject of designing residential streets.

These are guidance documents only:
• Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, Homburger, Deakin, Bosselmann, Smith, and Beukers (Institute of Transportation Engineers), 1989
• Residential Streets, 3rd Edition, American Society of Civil Engineers, Institute of Transportation Engineers, National Association of Home Builders, and the Urban Land Institute, 2001 • Traditional Neighborhood Development: Street Design Guidelines, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1999

DESIGNING FOR APPROPRIATE SPEEDS
The design of residential streets can often influence vehicles speeds. Residential streets that are wide, long, straight, and have few uninterrupted blocks have been shown to have a positive correlation to higher vehicle speeds. To minimize vehicle speeds, consider the following attributes when designing residential streets:
• Travel Lane Width – Current City standards for street width varies depending on the adjacent land use, and presence of on-street parking. Figures C-1 through C-4 of the Salinas General Plan specify standard cross-sections for new and existing streets. Provisions for on-street parking are also provided within these standards. Figure 5 shows a positive correlation between pavement width and increased traffic speeds.3

New streets should not exceed the current City standards. However, if additional width is provided in anticipation of high on-street parking demand, the roadway should be treated with appropriately spaced chokers, center median islands or other neighborhood traffic calming devices. • Block Length – Some street networks leave excessively long blocks with few side street intersections. Drivers who travel distances 600 feet or greater, as illustrated in the chart below, without being required to slow or stop by traffic control or neighborhood traffic management devices, tend to travel at speeds higher than the posted limit. To minimize this effect, the street network can be designed such that street blocks are frequently interrupted by streets of sufficient traffic volumes to warrant a traffic control device (e.g., stop sign) or a traffic calming device. Shorter block lengths also facilitate pedestrian movement throughout the neighborhood. The chart shows the correlation between unimpeded block length and travel speed.

Acceptable block lengths for urban local streets should not exceed 600-800 feet, while urban collector street block lengths should not exceed 1,000 feet.
3 Ballard, Andrew J. and Haldeman, David M. “Low Speed Design Criteria for Residential Streets.” ITE Journal December 2002: 44-46.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Chapter 5 – New Development Guidelines Page 63
• Parking Lanes – In circumstances where adjacent land uses generate low on-street parking demand (such as large-lot subdivisions or collectors without fronting uses) the street can function as if it were wider than intended. If the parking demand can be accommodated elsewhere, the parking lanes should be eliminated or restricted to one side of the street and the street width reduced accordingly.

Figure 5 Correlation Between Pavement Width, Unimpeded Street Length and Speed

DESIGNING FOR LOCAL TRAFFIC
Some residential collector streets can become cut-through routes, or routes used by non-local motorists as a means of bypassing congested or circuitous arterial roads. In these cases, the residential collector should be modified in one of two ways:
• The collector can be designed with a deviating path so that the overall distance by collector is greater than the distance by arterial.
• The residential roadway network can be designed such that traffic-controlled intersections interrupt the parallel collector route sufficiently that the travel time by collector is greater than the travel time by arterial.

PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE CONFLICT AREAS
Some elements of residential areas, such as schools, parks, community centers, or other high pedestrian generators, have particularly high potential for vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. The major pedestrian routes to school should be identified and traffic controls should be structured so that the number of crossings at uncontrolled cross-streets is minimized and pedestrians are directed to the most appropriate crossing locations. For both schools and parks, entrances tend to focus pedestrian street crossings at particular locations. These entrances can be made safer by combining them with roadway intersections, so that the intersection’s traffic control can also allocate right-of-way to pedestrians.

If a pedestrian-oriented land use is located in an area where speeding or high traffic volumes are unavoidable, then select neighborhood traffic management measures that accommodate and provide benefit to pedestrians. For example, at an intersection, bulbouts or center island narrowings should be given some preference over other measures, such as intersection realignment or speed humps. While a realigned intersection or speed hump may slow traffic in the area, a bulbout or center island narrowing assists Chapter 5 – New Development Guidelines Page 64
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
pedestrians by creating a shorter crossing distance and physical roadway narrowing, thereby reducing driver speed.

DEVELOPING A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
When a proposed street layout cannot be modified in such a way that will eliminate foreseeable potential traffic problems, the City should require preparation of a neighborhood traffic management plan (NTMP).

Follow the procedure for developing an NTMP as described in the Toolbox Chapter, with the following exceptions:
• For speed-related problems, existing travel speed data will not be available. Consequently, a response to anticipated speeding problems must rely on roadway geometry. For example, if a block length is greater than 600 feet, then the developer could use neighborhood traffic management measures to divide the block into segments that are each shorter than 600 feet. • For volume-related problems, traffic volume data will be available only in the form of traffic forecasts, and these will typically be limited to the major roads. The City or developer may need to prepare manual traffic volume estimates using land use quantities and trip generation rates for the proposed development.
• Anticipated safety problems will likely revolve around land uses that generate pedestrian activity, such as schools, parks, and community centers. For these land uses, consider the planned locations of walkways, gates, and building entrances when placing neighborhood traffic management devices (such as raised crosswalks or bulb-outs). Likewise, land use planning should consider existing and future traffic safety features.
• For some neighborhood traffic management measures, particularly those involving modified curbs, the developer can achieve significant cost-savings by constructing them concurrent with roadway construction. Consequently, when selecting a type of neighborhood traffic management measure, additional preference should be given to measures that take advantage of these cost-savings.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Appendix A – Design Guidelines Page A - 1
APPENDIX A – DESIGN GUIDELINES
This section describes the guiding design principles relating to various physical traffic calming devices. The design guidelines are based on recommended designs published in Traffic Calming State-of-the Practice4 and Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming5
. Appendix B contains standard engineering design templates for the most common traffic calming devices.

SPEED CONTROL – VERTICAL MEASURES
Ramp Profiles
Ramp profile describes the angle or approach of the vertical measure that a vehicle would traverse. Vertical measures (e.g., speed humps) should use Parabolic profiles on the approach and departure ramps to the device. Parabolic profiles have consistently been used in other programs around the nation and are a recommended design according to Institute of Transportation Engineers: Guidelines for the Design & Application of Speed Humps (ITE, 1993). Figure A-1 shows three commonly used profiles, and a description of each follows below:
• Sinusoidal profiles have slightly less reduction effects on speed than circular and parabolic profiles but higher comfort levels for vehicles and bicyclists and are typically more difficult and expensive to construct due to the slope of the profile. • Circular profiles have moderate reduction effects on speeds (compared to the two other profiles) and comfort levels for vehicles and bicyclists.
• Parabolic profiles have the greatest reduction effects on speeds but have the lowest comfort levels for vehicles and bicyclists due to the greater rise in the slope of the profile.

Figure A-1 Vertical Measure Ramp Profiles

4 Ewing, R. (1999). Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers/Federal Highway Administration.
5 Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming, (1998) Ottawa, Canada: Transportation Association of Canada.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Appendix A – Design Guidelines Page A - 2
Edge Tapers
The edge taper refers to the transition area between a vertical measure at its full height and the edge of the device. Edge tapers on vertical measures (e.g., speed humps and excluding raised crosswalks) should extend to the edge of the pavement (i.e., not into the gutter) to prevent blocking the gutter drainage.

On streets without vertical curbs, the edge taper should extend the full length of the pavement width to discourage drivers from straddling or driving around the vertical measure. In addition, an advisory sign (or other barrier) should be placed on either approach of the vertical device to prevent drivers from driving around the device.

Example: Bollards and advisory
sign encourage drivers to travel
over speed hump.

Edge Tapers – Parking and Bikeways
Vertical devices should extend across any parking or bike lane to prevent drivers from veering into the bike lane. Consequently, bicyclists
will traverse the even section
(as opposed to the tapered
portion) of the device. In
addition, vehicles parking on
the street will have the option to
park on a portion of the device
or avoid the device entirely.

Example: Speed lump extends to the edge of pavement across bike lane.

Raised Crosswalk Tapers
Example: Unimpeded drainage.

Raised crosswalks should always be designed to a height equal to the curb height, but not fully extend to the curb, as this will impede drainage. To bridge the gap between the sidewalk and raised crosswalk, a metal connector plate or other approved device may be used to allow unimpeded flow of the gutter. The design should also include truncated dome plates to indicate the entrance to the crosswalk from the sidewalk. Raised crosswalks may not be appropriate where curbs do not exist.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Appendix A – Design Guidelines Page A - 3

HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION MEASURES
Traffic Circle Center Island Profile
Example: Vertical inner curb and mountable
apron.

Traffic circles should be designed with both a vertical inner curb and a mountable apron. The vertical inner curb prevents vehicles from driving over the circle. The apron is a shallowsloped curb extending out from the bottom of a vertical curb; the apron has a low lip at its pavement-side edge. This apron effectively reduces the diameter of the center island for large vehicles, facilitating easier turns. The lip at the apron’s edge discourages vehicles from using it unnecessarily.

Traffic Circle Turn Operations
All vehicles should circulate around the center island on leftturns. However, an exception can be made for large trucks and buses in some cases if geometric constraints require it. If a specific intersection has a high proportion of trucks and/or bus traffic, alternative treatments may provide similar results without impact to trucks or busses. All traffic circles should be designed using the appropriate truck turning templates from Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2006). Software packages such as AutoCAD or AutoTURN may also be used
to identify whether emergency response vehicles and buses can maneuver around the circle.

Example: Truck turning radius using
mountable apron.

City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Appendix A – Design Guidelines Page A - 4
Traffic Circles at T-Intersections
Traffic circles should have deflection on all approaches if implemented at a T-intersection. This can be implemented in both existing neighborhoods in retrofit situations and in new neighborhood. First, a raised island can be placed at the right side of the un-deflected approach to the traffic circle to artificially introduce deflection, as shown in Figure A-2 (a). In new neighborhoods, the street curbs can be modified to allow the center island to be located at the center of the intersection, as shown in Figure A-2 (b).

Figure A-2 Traffic circles at T-Intersections

NARROWING MEASURES
Drainage
Narrowing measures, such as chokers, should be constructed to minimize or avoid blocking gutter flow, as illustrated in the photo. Modifying the drainage can be cost prohibitive and could require regular maintenance to clear debris from the modified gutter.

Example: Retrofit design with unimpeded
drainage.
(a) Existing Neighborhoods (b) New Neighborhoods
City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Appendix A – Design Guidelines Page A - 5
Neckdowns/Bulbouts
Narrowing measures, such as neckdowns or chokers, should not be constructed wider than the approximate width of a parked vehicle. Extension of these devices any further than the width of a parked vehicle could present potential safety issues to other drivers.

LANDSCAPING Example: Neckdown at intersection.

The standard treatment for all neighborhood traffic management devices will be hardscape (i.e., grouted cobblestone). Residents may fund aesthetic upgrades to neighborhood traffic calming devices such as landscaping or stamped and colored concrete (i.e., simulated brick work). Aesthetics upgrades not only improve the aesthetic quality of the device but increase the visual presence of the device. Landscaping should be limited to low-lying shrubs and plants. Trees planted on center islands must allow adequate sight distances for motorists.

Example: Standard treatment Example: Upgraded aesthetics City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
Appendix A – Design Guidelines Page A - 6

SIGNAGE AND STRIPING
Signage
Signage should be provided at or near traffic calming devices advising motorists of the device. Signage should be visible to both motorists and bicyclists. The signs should be comprised mostly of symbols and be easily understandable to motorists. Figure A-3 illustrates examples of several common warning signs.

The warning sign for a traffic circle or roundabout shown on Figure A-3 should be the standard used at such intersections. The warning sign is clear and concise, showing drivers the route around and turning options of the upcoming traffic circle or roundabout.

Special signing specific to bicyclists may be used as determined by Public Works staff. Examples of this signing include advising motorists not to pass bicyclists through narrow traffic calming devices or informing bicyclists of proper maneuvering of devices. This signage should be used when the travel rights of bicyclists warrant emphasis.

Striping
Pavement markings assist in warning motorists and bicyclists of traffic calming devices in the roadway.

Vertical devices should always include pavement markings on the device and may also include advanced warning legends (see Figure C-6). In certain situations, vertical devices may be unmarked, such as revitalization or beautification plans in a given area. In such cases, the device must be designed to provide a clear contrast with the surrounding environment.

The example image to the right illustrates the preferred striping option for vertical devices, such as speed lumps. This marking option is compliant with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA, 2003).

Example: Recommended striping.

COMBINED MEASURES
Some measures from the toolbox can be combined to increase the combined effect on traffic volumes and speeds. For example, a raised crosswalk may be combined with neckdowns, the effect being a crosswalk that is both shortened and raised above the level of the roadway. Motorists must then react to both a vertical deflection and a narrowing. In assessing the suitability of combined measures, the guidelines in Tables 1, 2, and 3 should be applied for both devices.

Appendix B – Standard Traffic Calming Templates Page B -1 City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
APPENDIX B – STANDARD TRAFFIC CALMING TEMPLATES
Standard neighborhood traffic management device designs are provided for the following measures.

Measures that do not have standard designs should be designed according to each situation specific to the roadway and traffic conditions.

Measure Figure
Speed Hump – Parabolic Profile ..........................................................................................................B-1A Speed Hump – Sinusoidal Profile.........................................................................................................B-1B Speed Lump ........................................................................................................................................... B-2 Speed Table ........................................................................................................................................... B-3 Raised Crosswalk................................................................................................................................... B-4 Raised Intersection................................................................................................................................. B-5 Vertical Device – Advance Warning Markings ....................................................................................... B-6 Neckdown/Bulbout – Intersection........................................................................................................... B-7 Neckdown/Bulbout – Midblock ............................................................................................................... B-8 Center Island Narrowing......................................................................................................................... B-9 Two-lane Choker .................................................................................................................................. B-10 Traffic Circle.......................................................................................................................................... B-11 Chicane................................................................................................................................................. B-12 Partial Closure ...................................................................................................................................... B-13 Diagonal Diverter.................................................................................................................................. B-14 Median Barrier ...................................................................................................................................... B-15 Forced Turn Island................................................................................................................................ B-16

Appendix C – City of Salinas Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Devises Policy Page C -1 City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
APPENDIX C – CITY OF SALINAS PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

ENHANCEMENT DEVISES POLICY
For reference, this appendix presents the City of Salinas Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Devises Policy near schools.

Exhibit A
The City of Salinas
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Devices Policy
Policy adopted on ___________________________. Resolution No. ___________________ The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices states that “…uniformity means treating similar situations in a similar way. The use of uniform traffic control devices does not, in itself, constitute uniformity. A standard device used where it is not appropriate is as objectionable as a nonstandard device; in fact, this may be worse, because such misuse might result in disrespect at those locations where the device is needed and appropriate.” To be consistent with appropriate use of traffic control devices and in response to increasing requests for traffic safety enhancements at school locations, the City has approved policy with criteria for when to install Pedestrian Safety Enhancements on City Streets. More specifically, this policy restricts the installation of these enhancements to specific locations at school zones only. The specific safety enhancement installations that are governed by this policy are:
1) High visibility crosswalks with an integrated Pedestrian LOOK pavement/sidewalk marking,
2) In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign
The City of Salinas is committed to the installation of the appropriate and the required traffic control devices on City Streets, including locations along school zones. However, the effectiveness of these and any traffic control device requires an appropriate amount of enforcement for violators of the control devices and appropriate education for users of these devices (motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists). Without appropriate enforcement and education, any installation of traffic control devices will not be as effective.

In response to budget constraints that prevent more frequent enforcement of traffic control devices at school zones, the City will consider the installation of traffic safety enhancements at school zones. This policy will provide the criteria for the use of a High Visibility Crosswalk and an integrated Pedestrian “LOOK” sign at school zones and the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign. These enhancements supports pedestrian crossings at school zones.

I. Application. In order to receive consideration under this policy, an applicant must submit a written request to the City of Salinas Development and Engineering Services Department, ATTN: Traffic Section, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, California 93901. A letter from the School and the School District must accompany the request stating the school’s and the district’s concurrence with the request.

II. Consideration. Effective on the adoption of this policy, requests for High Visibility Crosswalks and the integrated Pedestrian LOOK Sign shall be subject to the following criteria:

1. School Zone Criteria. Said Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Devices will be located at an existing school crosswalk adjacent to the school property, and along the suggested route to school; and

2. No installations at Controlled Intersections. Said Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Devices shall not be installed at intersections where ALL WAY STOPS or a Traffic Signal is already present; and

3. Installation only on two lane streets. Said Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Devices shall only be installed on two-lane streets. (Existing studies support installation on two-lane streets but results are mixed on multi-lane streets. It is not clear if these crosswalks increase yielding of motor vehicles to pedestrians on multi-lane streets); and

4. School Pedestrian Warrant.
a) At least 40 school pedestrians are crossing the uncontrolled street during each of any two hours (not necessarily consecutive) of a normal school day; and b) The vehicle volume through the crossing exceeds 500 vehicles per hour during the same hour the students are going to and/or from school during normal school hours; or
c) The number of pedestrians that are crossing the uncontrolled street in 4.a multiplied by the vehicle volume through the crossing during the same hour students are going to and/or from school during normal school hours exceeds 32,000.

This Policy provides a technically-based and uniform process for the recommendation of the above Pedestrian Safety Enhancements. However, each location requested for high visibility crosswalk will have its unique characteristics that may not be addressed by these criteria.

Other criteria that may have to be considered include unique street configuration, sight visibility requirements, other heavy uses of the street that are not school related, and other equally important considerations.

The decision to use a particular traffic control device at a particular location should be made on the basis of either an engineering study or the application of engineering judgment. Thus while the MUTCD, the California Supplement or this Policy provides standards, guidance or options for design and application of a traffic control device, the MUTCD, California Supplement or this Policy should not be considered a substitute for sound engineering judgment.

At the City Engineer’s discretion, traffic studies may be conducted to examine other considerations not part of this Policy’s criteria. Results of these studies may become the basis to support or oppose recommendation resulting from previously considered criteria.

III. Commission Consideration City staff will bring its recommendation to the Traffic and Transportation Commission (T&TC). The meeting of the T&TC provides a public forum for the applicant or any impacted party to support or protest City staff’s recommendation. The Traffic and Transportation Commission may recommend approval or denial of the applicant’s request based on the criteria above for these Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Devices.

IV. Council Consideration. The City Council makes the final decision regarding the request for a school high visibility crosswalk. The meeting of the City Council provides another public forum to appeal decisions of the T&TC made following the application of this policy.

I:\PWTra\Reports to Traffic and Transportation Commission\Crossing guards and other School Issues\School Traffic Safety Enhancements Policy-HVC and PLOOK Sign.doc
Exhibit C
I:\PWTra\Reports to Traffic and Transportation Commission\Crossing guards and other School Issues\University Park\T&TC 07 0510 RPT EnhancedXwalkUniversity.doc Appendix D – City of Salinas Primary Fire Response Routes Page D -1 City of Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program November 2008
APPENDIX D – CITY OF SALINAS PRIMARY FIRE RESPONSE
ROUTES
For reference, this appendix presents the City of Salinas Primary Fire Response Routes figure. #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*

N MAIN ST

ABBOTT ST

E BORONDA RD

E ALISAL ST

JOHN ST

N DAVIS RD

E LAUREL DR

TOWT ST

E MARKET ST

WILLIAMS RD

N SANBORN RD

DAVIS RD

PAJARO ST

NATIVIDAD RD

W ALISAL ST

E ALVIN DR

RIDER AVE

RIKER ST

W BLANCO RD

WORK ST

W ACACIA ST

E BLANCO RD

W ROSSI ST

E ROMIE LN

CENTRAL AVE

FREEDOM PKY

CONSTITUTION BLVD

W MARKET ST

HARKINS RD

S SANBORN RD

SHERWOOD DR

MARYAL DR

RUSSELL RD

HARDEN PKWY

CHAPARRAL ST

N MADEIRA AVE

GARNER AVE

DEL MONTE AVE

ALISAL ST

CALIFORNIA ST

W LAUREL DR

KERN ST

MOFFETT ST

LARKIN ST

PALMA DR

TYLER ST

SAN JUAN GRADE RD

MAPLE ST

IVERSON ST

BARDIN RD

NAVAJO DR

AIRPORT BLVD

SAN MIGUEL AVE

EL DORADO DR

RICO ST

VILLA ST

MCKINNON ST

NANTUCKET BLVD INDEPENDENCE BLVD

CLAY ST
N 1ST ST

IRIS DR

MAIN ST

FRONT ST

LINWOOD DR

CIRCLE DR

VICTOR ST

SALINAS ST

MONTEREY ST

LINCOLN AVE

FREEDOM PKWY

E BERNAL DR

ELVEE DR

PESCADERO DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

S MAIN ST

PALOMA AVE

CAPITOL ST

VAN BUREN AVE

BUCKHORN DR

W CURTIS ST

VERTIN AVE

MONTE BELLA BLVD

E ACACIA ST

TERVEN AVE

GRIFFIN ST

QUILLA ST

MADRID ST

ARCADIA WAY

KLAMATH DR

BRUNKEN AVE

NACIONAL ST

W ALVIN DR

CHEROKEE DR

SCHILLING PL

SKYWAY BLVD

CASENTINI ST

BEACON HILL DR

LOS COCHES AVE

ACOSTA PLZ

W ROMIE LN

E BOLIVAR ST

FAIRVIEW AVE

DAYTON ST

ST EDWARDS AVE

NISSEN RD

LAS CASITAS DR

PIAZZA DR

SYCAMORE RD

CLARK ST

LITTLE RIVER DR

SWANER AVE

CHARDONNAY DR

HOMESTEAD AVE

EISENHOWER ST

PALERMO DR

BORONDA RD

LESLIE DR

AUTO CENTER CIR

POST DR

S WOOD ST

BRIDGE ST

LEXINGTON DR

EMERALD DR
SUN ST

ALAMEDA AVE

TUSCANY BLVD

ADAMS ST

HANSEN ST

BURTON AVE

WESTMINSTER DR

PENNSYLVANIA DR

LOS OLIVOS DR

BROADWAY DR

S HEBBRON AVE

DECLARATION ST

CLEVELAND AVE

JOHNSON AVE

WESTRIDGE PKWY

SPICER ST

N N DAVIS RD

INGLEWOOD ST

RIANDA CIR

VICTORIA AVE

LUTHER WAY

S MAIN ST

ELVEE DR

E MARKET ST

CHEROKEE DR
City of Salinas
Primary Fire Response Routes I:\InfoSys\GIS_Projects\Public_Works\Traffic\FireRoutes\FireResponseRoutes.mxd N
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
City of Salinas
Information Systems
Station 1
Station 3
Station 4
Station 5
Station 2
Station 6
Major Arterial
Salinas City Limits
Minor Arterial
Collector
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-473, Version: 1
Potential Additional FY 24-25 Community Sponsorship Funding Discuss and provide direction on the potential allocation of an additional $50,000 towards the FY 24-25 Community Sponsorship Program.

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
FROM: RENE MENDEZ, CITY MANAGER

JIM PIA, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

SELINA ANDREWS, ACTING FINANCE DIRECTOR
TITLE: POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL FY 24-25 COMMUNITY

SPONSORSHIP FUNDING
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Discuss and provide direction on the potential allocation of an additional $50,000 towards the FY 24-25 Community Sponsorship Program.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council has consistently demonstrated its support for community initiatives through various programs, one of which is the Community Sponsorship Program. On April 9, 2024, City Council adopted a new Community Sponsorship Policy outlining the funding limits, application requirements, review, and selection process. During adoption of the budget on June 11, 2024, several Council members inquired if there were additional available funds that could increase the Community Sponsorship Program beyond the adopted $150,000.

BACKGROUND:

At the above referenced meeting that took place in April, Council adopted the new Community Sponsorship Policy. The Community Sponsorship application period has since taken place and the allocated $150,000 was awarded through the newly developed process.

Recent discussions relating to the Monterey One Water Payment Assistance program could potentially provide an additional $50,000 for the Community Sponsorships Program. Staff has identified previously unallocated funds which could have been utilized to facilitate partnering with the Monterey One Water Assistance program. Since M1W did not move forward with the property tax roll item, these previously unallocated funds could be appropriated if that’s the Council direction.

Staff would like to receive direction from Council whether to increase the FY 24-25 Community Sponsorship Program budget by $50,000 or apply it to the General Fund Balance, which can be Page | 2
used to balance future budgets. Should the Council provide direction to add $50,000 to the Sponsorship Program budget, staff will bring back recommendations at the next Council meeting per the Community Sponsorship Policy.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This action is consistent with the City Council’s goal of supporting an effective and culturally responsive government. (City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025).

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This staff report was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office, City Manager’s Office, and the Finance Department.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Funding is available and appropriated in the FY 24-25 Budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

None
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-479, Version: 1
Minutes
Approve minutes of August 6, 2024.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
City of Salinas
Meeting Minutes - Unofficial
City Council
Mayor Kimbley Craig
Councilmembers:

Carla Viviana González, District 1 - Tony Barrera, District 2 Jesus Valenzuela, District 3 - Orlando Osornio, District 4 Andrew Sandoval, District 5 - Anthony Rocha, District 6 Rene Mendez, City Manager
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
City Clerk’s Office: (831) 758-7381
Tuesday, August 6, 2024 3:00 PM SALINAS ROTUNDA
3:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
Councilmember Osornio arrived after Roll Call at 3:17 p.m.

Councilmember Tony Barrera
Councilmember Orlando Osornio
Councilmember Anthony Rocha
Councilmember Jose Andrew Sandoval
Councilmember Jesus Valenzuela
Mayor Kimbley Craig

Present: 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Carla Viviana Gonzalez

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
Received public comment from members of the public in attendnace and on Zoom.

CONSENT AGENDA
ID#24-438 Minutes
Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, the minutes of June 18, 2024 and June 25, 2024 were approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez
ID#24-448 Financial Claims
Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, the financial claims report was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

City of Salinas Page 1
City Council Meeting Minutes - Unofficial August 6, 2024 Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez
ID#24-398 Landscape Maintenance Service Contract for Harden Ranch District Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution to correct the not to exceed amount approved by City Council through Resolution No. 23010 (N.C.S.) for the Harden Ranch District Maintenance Service Contract from $210,000 to a total not to exceed amount of $213,000 was approved.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23043
ID#24-399 Administrative Correction to City and State Resolution No. 22909 Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution authorizing the administrative correction to Resolution No. 22909 (N.C.S.) previously approved on March 5, 2023; and an updated State Resolution for the HCD Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program Continuum of Care (CoC) Allocation was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23044
ID#24-403 Amendment No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with Wallace Group - Closter Park Green Streets
Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 4 with Wallace Group for development of engineering design plans, specifications, and cost estimate, to increase the total compensation by $65,860 for a revised not to exceed amount of $601,473, revise the scope of services, and extend the term through May 31, 2025 was approved. The motion failed by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23045
ID#24-412 Amendment No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with Wallace Group
Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment Number 4 City of Salinas Page 2
City Council Meeting Minutes - Unofficial August 6, 2024 Wallace Group for the Stormwater Development Impact Fee Rate Study; and approving the allocation of $47,750 from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Green Infrastructure project (CIP 8192) was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23046
ID#24-413 Amendment No. 3 to Agreement with Accountancy Corporation, DBA Maze & Associates for Accounting Services
Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution authorizing the City Manager and Purchasing Agent to negotiate and enter into Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services agreement with Accountancy Corporation, dba. Maze and Associates for accounting services to increase the maximum compensation by $200,000 for a revised amount not to exceed $400,000 was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23047
ID#24-414 Amendment No. 1 to the Master Services Agreement with Pavement Engineering Inc
Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 with Pavement Engineering Inc. (PEI) for on-call pavement management and support services to increase the compensation by $100,000, for a revised not to exceed amount of $300,530 and extend the term through August 18, 2025 was approved.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23048
ID#24-415 District 3A Residential Permit Parking Program - San Juan Drive Opt Out Request
Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution approving the San Juan Drive (bounded by San Jose Street and San Miguel Avenue) opt out of the District 3A Residential Permit Parking Program was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez
City of Salinas Page 3
City Council Meeting Minutes - Unofficial August 6, 2024

Enactment No: RES 23049
ID#24-417 Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response Software Renewal Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution authorizing the City Manager and Purchasing Agent to purchase the renewal of Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response from Savant Solutions, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $104,567.44 was approved. The motion failed by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23050
ID#24-419 MiVoice Connect Support Agreement Renewal
Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution authorizing the City Manager and Purchasing Agent to complete the purchase and renewal of the MiVoice Connect Support Agreement from Protelesis Corporation in an amount not to exceed $34,313.80 to provide on-going maintenance and support for the City's phone system was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23051
ID#24-422 2024/2025 Special Curb Markings Deletions
Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution approving the 2024/2025 special curb markings list and removal of three special curb marking parking stalls at 131 Abbott Street and 316 Williams Road was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23052
ID#24-428 Boronda Road Congestion Relief Project Phase 1, CIP 9510 Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution rescinding Resolution No 23008; and approving the plans and specifications for the Boronda Road Congestion Relief Project Phase 1, CIP No. 9510; and award of contract to Granite Construction Company for the Boronda Road Congestion Relief Project Phase 1, CIP No. 9510 in the amount of $15,637,796.93 (Base Bid plus Alternate Bid Items (Items 1-149); and approve a transfer of funds from Fund 2306 - (Development Fees - Arterial was approved.

The motion carried by the following vote:

City of Salinas Page 4
City Council Meeting Minutes - Unofficial August 6, 2024 Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23053
ID#24-432 HOME ARPA and PLHA Funds for Project Homekey
Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney to enter into any required agreements and to take any other action necessary to make previously allocated HOME ARP and PLHA funds available to two Homekey permanent supportive housing sites (180 South Sanborn Road and 1030 Fairview Avenue); and to execute any required amendments or other documents necessary to incorporate the change of ownership on the three Homekey properties (180 South Sanborn Road and 1030 Fairview Avenue and 545 Work Street); and authorize City staff to take any action that may be necessary to amend or update the City's HOME ARP Allocation Plan and the PLHA Program was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23054
ID#24-435 Sherwood Tennis Center Operations and Management Agreement Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution approving the Operations and Management Agreement between the City of Salinas and Central Coast YMCA for the Sherwood Tennis Center and authorizing the Mayor to enter into the Agreement on behalf of the City was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23055
ID#24-437 VMware Support Agreement Renewal
Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution authorizing the City Manager and Purchasing Agent to complete the purchase of VMware Cloud Foundation licensing from CDW-G LLC. to provide on-going maintenance and support for the City's virtual server infrastructure in an amount not to exceed $83,827.20 was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23056
City of Salinas Page 5
City Council Meeting Minutes - Unofficial August 6, 2024 ID#24-440 Modification to Classification - Salary Schedule and Workforce Allocation Adjustment
Upon motion by Councilmember Barrera, seconded by Councilmember Osornio, Resolution approving an amendment to the Classification - Salary Schedule to reflect the previously authorized salary adjustments for the Association of Management Personnel of Salinas (AMPS), Police Managers Association (PMA), and the three Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 521 units that became effective in the first full pay period of July 2024 and that Retired Annuitant classifications be adjusted to match corresponding regular classifications. Additionally, it is the recommended that vacant Community Safety Administrator position in the Library and Community Services Department be reclassified to Community Services Manager was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23057
COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS, APPOINTMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Valenzuela reported that he has been meeting with constituents in his district regarding traffic calming issues and measures.

Councilmember Rocha reported that he attended a Monterey One Water meeting where the Board discussed a short-term agreement with the City of Salinas to temporary divert industrial wastewater from the City’s Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility pump station to Monterey One Water. Additionally, he reported that he attended the Downtown Streets Team fifth year anniversary and the Community Human Services Youth Navigation Center’s grand opening ceremony. Councilmember Rocha noted that he will be attending the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority meeting on August 15, 2024.

Councilmember Sandoval requested and update from the City Manager regarding the status of the Amazon Project. He reported he is hosting a meeting with the community to discuss Laurelwood Park and will also be attended the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority meeting on August 15, 2024. Councilmember Sandoval requested staff consider moving the City Council meetings to a later time in order increase public participation.

Councilmember Barrera requested the City Council adjourn the meeting with a moment of silence im memory of the two-year old victim of the hit and run at E. Alisal Street and Wood Street. Councilmember Barrera reported that the fence at Carr Lake has been replaced and the sign at Cesar Chavez Library is scheduled for completion at the end of August. In closing, he invited the community to attend the Monte Bella Community meeting on August 13, 2024.

Councilmember Osornio commended the Salinas Valley Charros for their participation in the Rodeo festivities, the Obon Festival for successful event at the Buddhist Temple and Fremont Elementary School for their improvements project groundbreaking ceremony.

Councilmember Osornio reported that he met with members of the California Welcome Center and encouraged other councilmembers to do the same. He reported that a several sidewalk repairs are being completed throughout the city and noted that road City of Salinas Page 6
City Council Meeting Minutes - Unofficial August 6, 2024 improvements have begun at Rossi Street and David Road.

Mayor Craig reported that she attended the 114th Annual Rodeo and commended the community for participating in the various events. She announced that Northridge Mall celebrated its 50th anniversary and commended Compass Church for their 4th of July Extravaganza. Mayor Craig stated that she attended the Youth and Government Institute graduation and Mock City Council Meeting. In closing, she reported that she attended the Animal Hitchcock Road JPA recommended further dialogue between Hitchcock Road JPA and the SPCA to work together with the City and County of Monterey.

The City Council recessed for a break at 3:41 p.m. and reconvened at 4 p.m. for the noticed public hearings.
4:00 PM PUBLIC HEARINGS
ID#24-427 Tentative Map 2021-001; Request to subdivide an existing 189.27-acre lot into 427 single family and multi-family residential lots with an additional 10 Park, Open Space, and Public/Semipublic Lots (437 Total Lots) in a portion of the Central Area Specific Plan (CASP)
Received report from Planning Manager Courtney Grossman regarding Tentative Map 2021-001, a proposed 189.27-acre lot subdivided into 427 single-family and multi-family residential lots with an additional ten (10) Park, Open Space, and Public/Semipublic lots in six (6) separate phases for a proposed total of 1,674 dwelling units (ownership and rentals). The project has been determined to be in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it was fully analyzed in a prior Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Central Area Specific Plan (CASP) certified by the City Council on November 17, 2020. Report filed with the City Clerk as the official record.

The following members of the public in attendance and on Zoom commented on the report:

Hugh Walker, Stonebridge Developer
Daivd Maisonneuve
Luis Xago Juarez, Building Healthy Communities
Steve McDougal
Katie Bassler
Jeff Morgan, CHISPA President
Jesus Estrada, Center for Community Advocacy (J.A.V. Language Solutions) Matt Huerta, Resident, MBEP Director
Bill Freeman
Eric Petersen
Sabino Lopez, Center for Community Advocacy
Jose Guerra
Natalie HerendeenCenter for Community Advocacy
Unidentified audience member
Margaret Serna Bonetti
Nidia Soto, Building Healthy Communities (J.A.V. Language Solutions) Genesis Mojica, Center for Community Advocacy
Adriana Molina, Center for Community Advocacy (J.A.V. Language Solutions) Yolanda Hayes
Upon motion by Councilmember Rocha, seconded by Councilmember Sandoval, Resolution that determines that Tentative Map 2021-001 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it was fully analyzed in the City of Salinas Page 7
City Council Meeting Minutes - Unofficial August 6, 2024 prior Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Central Area Specific Plan (CASP) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183-Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning); and approve Tentative Map 2021-001 to subdivide a 189.27-acre lot into 427 single family and multi-family residential lots with an additional ten (10) Park, Open Space, and Public/Semipublic lots (437 tota1 lots) in six (6) separate phases for proposed total of 1,674 dwelling units was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23058
ID#24-295 Annual Levy of Assessments for Landscape and Maintenance Districts Received report from Donna Segura, Harris and Associates, regarding the annual levy of assessments within the city’s six lighting and landscaping districts for Fiscal Year 2024/25 in compliance with the procedures of the California Streets and Highways Code Sections 22620-22641. Report filed with the City Clerk as the official record.

The following members of the public in attendance and on Zoom commented on the report:

Yolanda Hayes
Upon motion by Councilmember Rocha, seconded by Councilmember Barrera, Resolution approving the Engineer's Reports, confirming the diagrams and levy amounts, and authorizing the levy and collection of annual assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-25 for the landscape maintenance assessment districts, and approving General Fund transfers to cover the parks and open space maintenance costs associated with the special benefits received by parcels outside the Landscape Maintenance Assessment District boundaries was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: RES 23059-23064
ID#24-401 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Projects Update No action. This item was tabled.

ID#24-411 Salinas United Business Association (SUBA) FY 2024-2025 Annual Assessment
Mayor Craig stated that her employer, Monterey County Business Council, has a contract with SUBA and although she has not financial interest, she recused herself out of an abundance of caution and left the meeting.

Received report from Alejandro Chavez, Salinas United Business Association Executive Director, regarding SUBA’s 2023-2024 Annual Report and setting the 2024-2025 SUBA BIA assessment levy public hearing for September 24th, 2024. Report filed with the City Clerk as the official record.

City of Salinas Page 8
City Council Meeting Minutes - Unofficial August 6, 2024 The following members of the public in attendance and on Zoom commented on the report:

David Maisonneuve
Eric Petersen
Upon motion by Councilmember Valenzuela, seconded by Councilmember Barrera, Resolution of Intention Resolution of Intention to levy the annual assessment in the Salinas United Business Association (SUBA) Business Improvement Area (BIA) for FY 2024-2025 and set a public hearing date to consider the levy was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmember Barrera, Councilmember Osornio, Councilmember Rocha, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Valenzuela and Mayor Craig 6 -

Absent: 1 - Councilmember Gonzalez

Enactment No: ROI 653

ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned in memory of Fermin Maldonado at 6:11 p.m..

City of Salinas Page 9
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-477, Version: 1
Financial Claims
Approve financial claims report.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/16/2024
powered by Legistar™
Number Date Status Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
476870 08/01/2024 Open City Clerks Association of California $400.00 476871 08/01/2024 Open James Arensdorf $67.00
476872 08/01/2024 Open Jorge Ramirez-Macias $66.60
476873 08/01/2024 Open Matt Gersonde $244.19
476874 08/01/2024 Open Stephen Craig $155.25
476875 08/01/2024 Open Ace Hardware $385.89
476876 08/01/2024 Open Alco Water $17,424.82
476877 08/01/2024 Open All Safe Security Alarm $114.00
476878 08/01/2024 Open Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. $56,912.55 476879 08/01/2024 Open Amazon.Com $3,414.84
476880 08/01/2024 Open American Planning Assoc $813.00
476881 08/01/2024 Open Andrew McLaughlin $100.00
476882 08/01/2024 Open Asap Alisal Signs And Printing $147.51 476883 08/01/2024 Open B F T LP dba Pet Waste Eliminator $1,954.24 476884 08/01/2024 Open Baron Augustine $100.00
476885 08/01/2024 Open Brent DeBorde $88.75
476886 08/01/2024 Open Brodart Company $2,416.38
476887 08/01/2024 Open Bruce Bush $100.00
476888 08/01/2024 Open Bryan Cupak $8,109.53
476889 08/01/2024 Open CDW Government LLC $23,989.64
476890 08/01/2024 Open Chris Lane $100.00
476891 08/01/2024 Open Chris Swinscoe $100.00
476892 08/01/2024 Open Cintas $156.21
476893 08/01/2024 Open Coast Automotive Warehouse Inc $228.87 476894 08/01/2024 Open Dana Cornelison $100.00
476895 08/01/2024 Open Daniel David Green $100.00
476896 08/01/2024 Open Dave Shaw $100.00
476897 08/01/2024 Open David L Crabill $100.00
476898 08/01/2024 Open David Poulin $100.00
476899 08/01/2024 Open Derek Gibson $4,823.53
476900 08/01/2024 Open Don Chapin Inc $1,379.24
476901 08/01/2024 Open East Bay Tire Company $1,368.71
476902 08/01/2024 Open Empower Retirement LLC $20,000.00 476903 08/01/2024 Open Fastenal Company $623.74
476904 08/01/2024 Open Fed Ex $47.18
476905 08/01/2024 Open First Alarm $1,328.34
476906 08/01/2024 Open First Alarm Security & Patrol Inc dba An Allied Un $1,710.82 476907 08/01/2024 Open Genuine Parts Company dba NAPA Auto Parts $87.31 476908 08/01/2024 Open George Lauricella $100.00
476909 08/01/2024 Open Granite Rock Co $1,133.36
476910 08/01/2024 Open Heath Johnson $100.00
General Account - General Account
Check
City of Salinas
Payment Register
From Payment Date: 7/31/2024 - To Payment Date: 8/14/2024 user: Josephine Fernandez Pages: 1 of 3 Wednesday, August 14, 2024 Number Date Status Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
General Account - General Account
Check
City of Salinas
Payment Register
From Payment Date: 7/31/2024 - To Payment Date: 8/14/2024 476911 08/01/2024 Open Hector Cortez $100.00
476912 08/01/2024 Open Henry Gomez $100.00
476913 08/01/2024 Open Herc Rentals Inc. $330.21
476914 08/01/2024 Open Hydro Turf $313.09
476915 08/01/2024 Open Ingram Book Company $1,137.70
476916 08/01/2024 Open International Institute of Municipal Clerks $250.00 476917 08/01/2024 Open International Institute of Municipal Clerks $150.00 476918 08/01/2024 Open Interstate Battery System Inc $870.40 476919 08/01/2024 Open Jacqueline Pacelli $100.00
476920 08/01/2024 Open James Knowlton $100.00
476921 08/01/2024 Open Jesse Pinon $100.00
476922 08/01/2024 Open John Wider $100.00
476923 08/01/2024 Open Johnson Associates $1,902.14
476924 08/01/2024 Open Johnson Electronics $120.00
476925 08/01/2024 Open Jonathan Barnes $100.00
476926 08/01/2024 Open Jose Luis Corral dba Salinas Pizza $552.27 476927 08/01/2024 Open Joshua Lynd $600.00
476928 08/01/2024 Open Joshua T Abergel dba Town 'N Country Realty $2,150.00 476929 08/01/2024 Open Keith Emery $100.00
476930 08/01/2024 Open Kenneth Schwener $100.00
476931 08/01/2024 Open Kevin Skinner $100.00
476932 08/01/2024 Open Kurtis Matthews $4,858.71
476933 08/01/2024 Open Kyle Daniels $4,849.11
476934 08/01/2024 Open Leatherhead Concepts Inc $1,223.16 476935 08/01/2024 Open Michael Groves $100.00
476936 08/01/2024 Open Midwest Tape, LLC dba Midwest Tape $331.16 476937 08/01/2024 Open MissionSquare Retirement $20,000.00 476938 08/01/2024 Open Monterey County Health Department $920.00 476939 08/01/2024 Open Onecimo Solis $40.10
476940 08/01/2024 Open Oscar Dydasco $100.00
476941 08/01/2024 Open Pacific Gas and Electric Company $787.28 476942 08/01/2024 Open Patricia Penaloza $1,000.00
476943 08/01/2024 Open Pedro C Estrada Dba Estrada Janitorial Service $1,610.00 476944 08/01/2024 Open Protel Communications, Inc dba Protelesis Corporat $151.87 476945 08/01/2024 Open Quality Water Enterprises Inc dba Culligan Water $1.00 476946 08/01/2024 Open RDO Equipment Company $1,417.36
476947 08/01/2024 Open Rexel USA, Inc dba Platt Electric Supply $4,622.05 476948 08/01/2024 Open Richard Maldonado $100.00
476949 08/01/2024 Open Ricky Williams $100.00
476950 08/01/2024 Open Robert Flynn $300.00
476951 08/01/2024 Open Robert Hernandez $4,829.42
user: Josephine Fernandez Pages: 2 of 3 Wednesday, August 14, 2024 Number Date Status Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
General Account - General Account
Check
City of Salinas
Payment Register
From Payment Date: 7/31/2024 - To Payment Date: 8/14/2024 476952 08/01/2024 Open Ryan Keating $4,653.29
476953 08/01/2024 Open Same Day Shred $50.00
476954 08/01/2024 Open San Lorenzo Lumber $1,046.21
476955 08/01/2024 Open Scott Houchin $100.00
476956 08/01/2024 Open Scott Myhre $100.00
476957 08/01/2024 Open Scott Tyler $100.00
476958 08/01/2024 Open Shannon Bryant $600.00
476959 08/01/2024 Open Sheldon Bryan $100.00
476960 08/01/2024 Open Simon Jimenez $100.00
476961 08/01/2024 Open Smart and Final Iris $777.41
476962 08/01/2024 Open Stanley Cooper $100.00
476963 08/01/2024 Open Suthichai Livingston $100.00
476964 08/01/2024 Open Suthided Livingston $100.00
476965 08/01/2024 Open Suzanne Cottle-Gavalla $100.00
476966 08/01/2024 Open TALX UC Express $1,003.94
476967 08/01/2024 Open Target Pest Control $100.00
476968 08/01/2024 Open Target Solutions Learning LLC dba Vector Solutions $1,118.25 476969 08/01/2024 Open Ted Koch $100.00
476970 08/01/2024 Open Terry Gerhardstein $100.00
476971 08/01/2024 Open The Bakery Station LLC $229.42
476972 08/01/2024 Open Todd Swinscoe $100.00
476973 08/01/2024 Open Tony Zuniga dba Tacos Don Beto $392.86 476974 08/01/2024 Open U.S. Bank National Association ND $19,804.14 476975 08/01/2024 Open United Parcel Service $38.64
476976 08/01/2024 Open Vestis Group, Inc dba Vestis Services, LLC $112.68 476977 08/01/2024 Open W W Grainger Inc $4,535.40
476978 08/01/2024 Open Walmart c/o Capitol One $206.56
476979 08/01/2024 Open La Barata Tienda $704.00
476980 08/01/2024 Open PG&E $25.75
476981 08/01/2024 Open Santa Lucia Rotary $138.44
476982 08/08/2024 Open Cameron Murphy $341.75
476983 08/08/2024 Open Jessica Uribe $341.75
476984 08/08/2024 Open Juliane Sharpe $341.75
476985 08/08/2024 Open Michael Batchelor $275.00
Type Check Totals: $245,545.77
General Account - General Account Totals
user: Josephine Fernandez Pages: 3 of 3 Wednesday, August 14, 2024 City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-263, Version: 1
2024 California International Airshow Permit
Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to execute an Airport Use Permit for the 2024 California International Airshow, to be conducted by the Monterey County Airshow Association, Incorporated at the Salinas Municipal Airport, in accordance with the terms of said permit.

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

CITY OF SALINAS

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 20, 2024
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS, AIRPORT DIVISION
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PE, LS, DIRECTOR
BY: MATT NELSON, AIRPORT MANAGER
TITLE: 2024 CALIFORNIA INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW PERMIT AT

THE SALINAS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to execute an Airport Use Permit for the 2024 California International Airshow, to be conducted by the Monterey County Airshow Association, Incorporated at the Salinas Municipal Airport, in accordance with the terms of said permit.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Monterey County Airshow Association, Incorporated (“Airshow Association”), desires to conduct the 2024 California International Airshow at the Salinas Airport. A permit is required for the Airshow Association to utilize the Airport, adjoining public streets, and facilities used in conducting of the 2024 California International Airshow.

BACKGROUND:

The 43
rd California International Airshow is scheduled to take place at the Salinas Municipal Airport on September 28 and 29, 2024. This year’s airshow will feature the United States Airforce Thunderbird Demonstration Team, the Patriots Jet Team, and several other aircraft acts and displays. The California International Airshow has been showcasing aviation excellence for over 41 years while at the same time raising over $9.5 million for local charities.

Utilizing all volunteers and service groups from the community, the organization each year plans and executes the event that entertains 25,000 to 30,000 spectators annually. The top military and civilian performers in the United States and Canada thrill and inspire the crowds. Over 90 static aircraft, exhibits, and displays are available for Airshow fans to enjoy during their experience. The goal each year is to produce an event that will be family-oriented, educational, and entertaining for the whole family. In addition to its main goal of raising money for charity, the airshow’s charter also emphasizes volunteerism and community involvement, family-oriented entertainment, aviation and its contributions to the American way of life, and pride in our nation and its military.

Page | 2
To most of Monterey County and the Central Coast, the California International Airshow represents a homegrown community event based in Salinas that is a spectacle of fun and entertainment. To the City of Salinas, it is an annual economic infusion of millions of dollars to the local economy. The airshow event planning process never ends; at the completion of each annual event, the event planners begin preparing for the next year’s event. The hosting of the Airshow is in the best interests of general aviation and the Airport, with the purposes of enhancing the Salinas community image, promoting public use of the Airport, and promoting revenue for local charitable organizations.

Permit:

The attached Permit is essentially the same as those approved in previous years but with minor modifications. The Permit requires a $10,000,000 Airmeet Liability Insurance Policy and includes authorization for various street closures and specific operational provisions. Typically, only one other City Permit, a Special Events Permit, is required for the event. Once completed, the Special Events Permit becomes the “Exhibit A” document referenced in the Airshow Permit. The Airport Use Permit is being presented to the Airport Commission for review without the Special Events Permit because 1) All Airport use issues are covered in the Airshow Permit and the Special Events Permit covers City Streets and facilities and therefore does not come under Airport Commission review; and, 2) Timing is such that the Airport Use Permit needs to advance through the Airport Commission in order to gain overall Permit approval prior to the Airshow.

In-Kind Contribution:

Airport staff recommends waiving the following:
 $38,600 Permit Fee
 $46,200 staff time estimate, not including overtime
 $11,200 fire vehicles costs estimate
Salinas Pilot Association (SPA) Donation:

The Airshow Organization is continuing to honor the fundraising clause in the agreement for the Salinas Pilot Association (SPA). The Monterey County Airshow Association, Inc. will donate $2,500 (cash donation) to SPA for volunteer services rendered during the airshow period. In consideration of the $2,500 donation, SPA will provide various services during the air show.

City of Salinas Booth Space:

In consideration for waiving the Airport’s $38,600 Permit Fee, the Airshow Association has agreed to provide the City of Salinas, at no charge, three (3) Booth Spaces for promoting and enhancing the Airport and City of Salinas’ community outreach.

CEQA/NEPA CONSIDERATION:

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

Page | 3
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Approval of the 2024 California International Airshow permit complements Salinas City Council’s Economic Development and Public Safety 2024-2025 Strategic Goals and Strategies.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The estimated City contribution is anticipated to come from the General Funds (General Fund, Measure E, and Measure G) and the Airport Fund.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION
The Use Permit has been reviewed as to form by the City Attorney’s office. Public Works, Police Department, and Fire Department participate in the planning and execution of the Airshow.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution - 2024 Airport Use Permit to Conduct Air Shows at the Salinas Municipal Airport 2024 Airport Use Permit to Conduct Air Shows at the Salinas Municipal Airport RESOLUTION NO. ________________ (N.C.S.)

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF AN AIRPORT USE PERMIT AND

WAIVING THE AIRPORT USE PERMIT FEES FOR MONTEREY COUNTY AIRSHOW ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED FOR THE 2024 CALIFORNIA

INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW AT THE SALINAS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas is the owner of that certain public airport known as the Salinas Municipal Airport (“Airport”); and
WHEREAS, the Monterey County Airshow Association, Incorporated (“Airshow Association”), desires to conduct the 2024 California International Airshow at the Airport; and WHEREAS, the staging of said Airshow is in the best interest of general aviation and the public with the purposes of enhancing the Salinas community image, promoting public use of the Airport, and promoting revenue for local charitable organizations; and WHEREAS, the City of Salinas desires to grant the Airshow Association the right to utilize the Airport, adjoining public streets, and facilities used in conjunction with the Airshow pursuant to the terms of an Airport Use Permit, for the conducting of the 2024 California International Airshow; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas desires to support the Airshow’s activities by waiving the Airport Use Permit Fees and by having the Airport Enterprise Fund cover the costs associated with City staff support of the Airshow; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to FAA Policies and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue: Federal Register Volume 64, No. 30, February 16, 1999, the City Attorney’s Office has determined that it is permissible for the City Council to authorize a sponsorship contribution from the Airport Enterprise Fund to the California International Airshow provided the following criteria are met:
(1) The contribution must be minimal,
(2) The contribution must be substantially related to the operation of the Airport, (3) The contribution must have the intangible benefit of enhancing the Airport’s acceptance in local communities impacted by the Airport; and
WHEREAS, at the July 25, 2024, Airport Commission meeting, the Airport Commission recommended approval of the Airport Use Permit and the waiving of the Airport Use Permit Fees, totaling $38,600, for the Monterey County Airshow Association, Incorporated for the 2024 California International Airshow at the Salinas Municipal Airport.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF SALINAS that the attached Airport Use Permit (“Permit”) is hereby approved and further, that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed, for and on behalf of the City of Salinas as its act and deed, to execute and issue such Permit; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Permit fee of $38,600 is hereby waived and that the costs associated with City staff support to the Airshow be covered by the Airport Enterprise Fund.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
2024 Airshow Permit 1

PERMIT TO CONDUCT AIR SHOWS

AT THE SALINAS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
THIS PERMIT is issued by the CITY OF SALINAS, a California charter city and municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “City,” to the MONTEREY COUNTY AIRSHOW ASSOCIATION, INCORPORTATED, a California Nonprofit Corporation doing business as the CALIFORNIA INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW, hereinafter referred to as “Permittee.”

WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, City is the owner of that certain public airport known as the Salinas Municipal Airport (“Airport”) located in the City of Salinas, County of Monterey, California; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of Permittee to use said Airport for the purpose of preparing for and conducting the 2024 California International Airshow (“Airshow”); and WHEREAS, the staging of said Airshow is in the best interests of general aviation and the public with the purposes of enhancing the Salinas community image, promoting public use of the Airport, and promoting revenue for local charitable organizations.

NOW, THEREFORE, this Permit is provided upon the following terms and conditions:

TERMS

1. SCOPE OF PERMIT
City hereby grants Permittee the right to utilize portions of the Airport and adjoining public streets and facilities used in conjunction with the Airshow, for the staging and conducting of the Airshow and for purposes incidental thereto as further described below and for no other purpose unless granted, in writing, by City.

2. NATURE OF INTEREST GRANTED
It is specifically understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the relationship created by this instrument is not one of landlord and tenant, principal and agent, or owner and contractor, it being the intention of the parties that this Permit is merely for the purpose of allowing Permittee to use portions of the Airport and 2024 Airshow Permit 2
the facilities thereon on a temporary basis for the purposes of staging and conducting the Airshow and activities related and incidental thereto.

3. TERM
This Permit shall allow Permittee to utilize portions of the Airport pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Permit for a fifteen (15) day period beginning on the Monday, September 16, 2024, through Tuesday, October 1, 2024.

4. FEE
The Airport Administrative Fees for this permit are being waived. The total fees being waived are $38,600.00 for the use of the airport during the permitted period. The permittee will be billed and agrees to pay for repair or replacement of any Airport equipment, facilities, or property damaged as a result of Airshow operation and/or the Permittee’s use and occupation of the Airport during the term of this Permit. Additionally, in consideration of the Fee Wavier, the Permittee agrees to terms and conditions of Section 31, Sponsorship, of this agreement.

5. OBLIGATIONS OF PERMTITEE
A. FAA Approval. Approval of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must be obtained by Permittee for all phases of the Airshow, as evidenced by a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization, a copy of which must be provided to City at least fifteen (15) days prior to the effective date of this Permit.

B. Fencing. Construction of temporary fencing in addition to any existing permanent fencing will be permitted, subject to prior approval of City’s Airport Manager as to type of fence mounting and location of fences and access gates. Temporary fencing may be anchored to permanent fence corners provided that such attachment in no way alters or damages any permanent fence structure and all attaching devices are removed with the temporary fence. Permittee shall install temporary fencing around the perimeter of the Jet West maintenance hangar and adjacent ramp area, prior to any activity conducted in the Jet West maintenance hangar. Also, temporary fencing will be placed around all lighting equipment left in place behind the crowd line and any other area deemed necessary by the City’s Airport Manager. 2024 Airshow Permit 3
C. Security. Permittee shall provide, at its own expense, sufficient security personnel to protect general aviation aircraft based at the Salinas Airport during the term of this Permit, whenever such aircraft are located in other than the regularly assigned tiedown location. Such sufficiency shall be determined by City’s Police Department and any recommendations from City’s Police Department regarding security activities shall be followed. Permittee shall provide security for all Airport buildings, facilities, equipment, and property during the periods when the Airport is open to Airshow spectators. Permittee will also provide security for transient aircraft, Airshow participating aircraft, and vehicles and equipment that are participating in the Airshow during the period of this Permit.

D. Crowd Control. Permittee shall furnish such personnel as are necessary to enable the public to park, give traffic directions, and provide crowd control. Crowd control barriers shall be in place before any Airshow activity takes place on the Airport.

E. Water, Sanitary, and First Aid Facilities. Permittee shall provide at its own expense such water, sanitary, and first aid facilities as are deemed necessary by Monterey County Health Department to accommodate expected crowds.

F. Temporary Living Facilities. Except as hereinafter provided, camper trucks, trailers, and/or other temporary living facilities may be utilized in any areas designated by the Airport Manager. By way of this Permit, if Permittee authorizes overnight stays, Permittee shall provide continuous security patrols of the overnight stay area between the hours of 7:00pm and 7:00am.

G. Fire Protection and Aircraft Rescue Equipment. Permittee shall furnish and be responsible for any and all such fire protection and aircraft crash rescue equipment and services as are deemed necessary by the City and the FAA.

H. Repair and Maintenance of Airport Property. Permittee shall be responsible for the repair and maintenance of any buildings, facilities, equipment or property of the Airport impacted by operations under this Permit. Immediately subsequent to the close of the Airshow and not later than the Monday (5:00pm) following event, Permittee shall clean the entire area used by it, shall remove any and all debris and trash, and shall restore the area insofar as possible to the condition existing immediately prior to the commencement of 2024 Airshow Permit 4
the Permittee’s operations as allowed by this Permit. The aircraft parking ramps southeast of the Airport Terminal Building, both based and transient aircraft ramps will be cleared not later than the Monday (5:00pm) following the event, so as to permit use of the ramp for aircraft parking. If, in the opinion of City’s Airport Manager, the repair, maintenance, cleaning, and trash removal requirements have not been accomplished satisfactorily, City may, after notification of Permittee, cause such repair, maintenance, cleaning, and trash removal to be made at Permittee’s expense. The cost of such work shall be billed separately.

I. Licenses and Permits. Permittee shall obtain and bear the expense of all licenses, permits, and other authorization required by any and all applicable agencies. Pyrotechnic permits will be obtained from the City and State of California when required. Permittee shall pay promptly and discharge all lawful taxes and assessments which may be levied by the federal, state, county, city or other tax levying body on any taxable interest of Permittee as well as all taxes and assessments on taxable personal property of whatever nature owned by Permittee and located on the Permit premises. Permittee shall promptly pay all excise, license, and permit fees of whatever nature applicable to the operation of Permittee’s business.

J. Permit to Conduct Airshow. When this Permit is approved by the Salinas City Council, it shall be deemed a permit issued by the Community Development Director in lieu of a Temporary Land Use Permit, as required under Section 37-50.300 of the City’s Zoning Code.

K. Spectator Parking. It is understood and agreed that certain portions of the Airport will be utilized for parking of spectator operated private vehicles. Permittee agrees that all such vehicles parked on Airport premises, inside the security fence, will be removed from said area not later than 6:00 p.m. of any day when parking has been authorized by City’s Airport Manager. However, the Permittee will ensure that all vehicles are removed from the Airport within two (2) hours after activity ends. Permittee will be prepared to move said vehicles to an area outside the security fence if they remain after the time specified above. Permittee will be responsible for advising all vehicle operators of this provision. If vehicles are not removed by Permittee as agreed in this section, such vehicles will be removed at the direction of Airport management and Permittee shall be held responsible for the costs and charges associated with such removals. 2024 Airshow Permit 5
L. Transient Aircraft. Transient aircraft are authorized to park overnight in areas designated by City’s Airport Manager, who will collect overnight tiedown fees as appropriate.

M. Street Closure. Permittee agrees to abide and comply with the Street Closing Permit attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference.

N. Costs Associated with Airshow Production. Permittee shall bear all costs connected with staging of the Airshow and activities incidental thereto. The sole function of City is to provide the necessary facilities and areas and to enforce the provisions of this Permit.

6. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
A. City shall make available for use, by Permittee, City-owned and controlled buildings, land, personal property, and equipment necessary to facilitate the Airshow for which the City may charge a fee in addition to the Permit Fee.

B. It is recognized that the nature of the Airshow precludes normal general aviation and public use of the Airport during the Airshow events. Therefore, City shall close the Airport to all general aviation aircraft during the period that the Airshow is actually in progress, provided however that locally based aircraft and transient aircraft shall be allowed to operate when scheduled Airshow events are not taking place. Permittee shall not interfere with the regular operation of tenants doing business on the Airport.

7. OPERATIONAL PROVISIONS
A. Traffic Control. All barricades on City streets at critical intersections shall be staffed by Airshow personnel. Airshow will pay for all Salinas Public Works services related to the Airshow, including but not limited to: delivery/removal and utilization of barricades, cones, and other traffic control equipment; garbage/debris removal; sweeping and sanitation; and traffic control and guide signs. Permittee shall furnish such personnel as are necessary to enable the public to park, give traffic directions, and provide crowd control.

The Salinas Police Department is responsible for determining the appropriate personnel required at critical intersections, the exact hours, and number of personnel necessary to safely and efficiently manage traffic control for this event.
2024 Airshow Permit 6
B. Staffing by Salinas Police Department. Police staffing shall be consistent with the City’s current salary schedule and labor agreements. The exact hours and number of law enforcement personnel needed for traffic control and other duties will be determined by the Police Department prior to and during the Airshow.

C. Security. Permittee shall provide private security on the Airport inside the Airport security fence on all days of Airshow activity attended by the general public, as required in section 5 of this Permit.

D. Airshow Communications Command Post. Permittee shall establish an Airshow Communications Command Post from which all of its efforts in regard to the Airshow and this Permit shall be coordinated. A Salinas Police Department representative shall be present at the Airshow Communications Command Post each day at Permittee’s expense.

E. Airshow Bank. One uniformed Salinas Police Officer will be present at the Airshow bank each day at Permittee’s expense.

F. Emergency Services Communications Plan. Permittee shall establish in coordination with the Salinas Fire Department, a communications plan to include emergency services.

G. Incident Command Center. Permittee shall provide an area for location of an Incident Command Center, as required by Salinas Fire Department.

H. Parking of Fire Department Apparatus. Permittee shall provide area for parking of fire apparatus at the Airport.

I. Emergency Notification List. Permittee shall provide a current emergency notification list to the City prior to the commencement date of this Permit.

J. Emergency Response Location Grid. Permittee shall provide an accurate Airport emergency response location grid map to the City prior to the commencement date of this Permit.

K. Access to Fire Access Roads and Gates. Permittee shall ensure that fire access roads and gates remain clear and accessible throughout the Airshow.

L. Fire Prevention Activities in Cooking Booths. All cooking booths or areas shall have at least one 2A10BC fire extinguisher available, as determined by the Fire Marshall, if an open flame device will be used for cooking purposes. No open flame device may be used for any purpose other than cooking. 2024 Airshow Permit 7

8. SAFETY
A. Safety shall be of primary importance to this event. Anyone who flies in a manner and style not considered to demonstrate good airmanship and safety shall be barred from any further activities. It shall be the duty of the Permittee to ensure that the safety and good airmanship of all Airshow performers will be observed at all times, and Permittee shall take any and all steps necessary, including prohibition of flying, in the event Permittee determines that good airmanship and safety are being threatened or compromised. In the absence of the FAA monitor or Permittee supervision, and when City’s Airport Manager is of the opinion that the Permittee is unable to fulfill said requirements of good airmanship and safety, the Airport Manager shall stop all Airshow connected activity until the unsafe or unsatisfactory condition is corrected. Other applicable enforcement agencies shall have full authority to order stoppage or direct correction of any unsafe condition or practice observed on or over the Airport.

B. No person shall operate a motor vehicle of any kind on the Airport in a negligent or reckless manner.

The speed limit on the Airport is a speed consistent with the variable weather conditions of the area being traversed and common sense and good judgment but in no case greater than 15 MPH. No person shall cross any Airport runway, whether in a vehicle or otherwise, without having first obtained permission from the Air Traffic Controller, except when the runway has been officially closed by the City’s Airport Manager and the person has been notified of that status before each runway crossing.

9. INSURANCE
A. Permittee shall, at its sole expense, throughout the duration of this Permit, maintain commercial general liability and property damage insurance, including but not limited to premises and automobile, and Air Meet liability insurance, covering all operations of the Permittee, its agents, and employees, performed in connection with this Permit, including but not limited to set up of premises, practices, performances, cleanup and dismantling, and any pyrotechnic displays or demonstrations. Such insurance coverage shall be in the amounts and according to the conditions provided as follows:
(1) Air Meet. A $10,000,000 Air Meet Liability Occurrence All Risk Policy on a standard policy form which includes, without limitation, the following coverages:
2024 Airshow Permit 8
a. Grandstand liability, if grandstands are to be used; b. Non-owned automobile liability for Airshow activities; c. Pyrotechnics liability; and
d. The City of Salinas, along with its employees, officers, agents, representatives, boards, commissions, and commissioners, shall be named as additional insureds by endorsement to the Air Meet liability insurance policy.
(2) General Liability. A $2,000,000 commercial general liability insurance policy on a peroccurrence basis, which includes, without limitation, the following coverages:
a. Bodily injury;
b. Property damage;
c. Personal injury and advertising;
d. Auto liability, including non-owned auto liability;
e. Parking liability;
f. Products/completed operations;
g. Liquor legal liability;
h. Host liquor liability;
i. Contractual Liability; and
j. The City of Salinas, along with its employees, officers, agents, representatives, boards, commissions, and commissioners, shall be named as additional insureds by endorsement to the general liability insurance policy.
(3) All insurance companies affording coverage to the Permittee shall be insurance organizations admitted by the Insurance Commissioner of the State Department of Insurance to transact the business of insurance in the State of California. And insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. (4) Each insurance policy required shall provide that the coverage shall not be canceled or reduced in coverage except with notice to the City of Salinas. For the purposes of this notice 2024 Airshow Permit 9
requirement, any cancellation or reduction in coverage shall be considered a material change and subject this Permit to cancellation.
(5) Permittee shall provide evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements listed above by providing to the City certificates of insurance and endorsements, in forms satisfactory to the City, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the effective date of this Permit. No material change in coverage or cancellation may be made after that time.

If any policy has an aggregate limit or for some other reason the total amount of the limits of any policy are not available to cover indemnification obligations and/or losses described in this Permit, the insurance certificate(s) shall also state the unpaid limits of the policy.

Certificates of insurance shall identify any deductible amounts. All deductibles must be in amounts acceptable to City.
(6) Permittee’s coverage shall be primary coverage as respects the City. Any insurance or selfinsurance maintained by the City shall be excess of the Permittee’s insurance. (7) Maintenance of insurance by the Permittee as specified in the Permit shall in no way be interpreted as relieving the Permittee of any responsibility whatsoever and the Permittee may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it deems necessary. (8) In the event of cancellation of any of the required insurance, this Permit is immediately null and void and Permittee shall immediately cease all operations under this Permit and vacate the Airport premises.
(9) Permittee hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of Permittee may acquire against the City by virtue of any payment of any loss under such insurance. Permittee agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

B. Prior to the commencement of any and all activities pertinent to the granting of the Permit and/or its rights and privileges (including set-up of premises, practices, performances, clean-up, and dismantling), 2024 Airshow Permit 10
Permittee shall ensure that all of its employees and/or all employees of any contractors of Permittee, are covered by Workers’ Compensation insurance with statutory limits as well as Employer’s Liability insurance with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease, for any person injured while performing any work incidental to the work in or on the Airport. Permittee hereby waives any rights of subrogation against the City. Permittee shall file a certificate evidencing such coverage as well as a waiver of subrogation endorsement on a form satisfactory to City.

C. Permittee shall require that all contractors and/or concessionaires maintain liability insurance, including aircraft liability insurance when applicable, and provide certificates of insurance to the Permittee evidencing such insurance in an amount no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage liability which name the City of Salinas, its employees, officers, agents, representatives, boards, commissions and commissioners, and the Permittee, as additional insureds by endorsements with occurrence form coverage, in amounts, determined appropriate by the City and Permittee, to the product or service being provided by the concessionaire.

10. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION
Permittee shall indemnify, defend, and save the City, its officers, employees, agents, and representatives harmless against any and all claims for damages to all persons or property arising from Permittee’s execution of the activity, or otherwise by the conduct of the Permittee, its officers, employees, agents, concessionaires, subcontractors or others (including the active and passive negligence of the City, its officers, agents, and employees), in connection with the execution of the activities covered by this Permit and any and all costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, employees, or representatives in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not, except only those claims arising from the willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Further, Permittee shall at its own expense, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, representatives, and employees. This section specifically includes any liability arising out of or in connection with separate agreements that City may execute with third parties for 2024 Airshow Permit 11
services, volunteer or otherwise, relating to or in support of Airshow events including, but not limited to, preparation, set-up, and clean-up work and activities.

Further, Permittee agrees to save, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, and agents against all liabilities, judgments, costs, and expenses, which may accrue against City as a consequence of granting permits and agreements to Permittee and from Permittee’s compliance with the provisions of the City’s rules, regulations, resolutions, and ordinances. Permittee shall reimburse the City for all costs and expenses (including but not limited to fees and charges of attorneys and other professional and court costs) incurred by the City in enforcing the provisions of this Section.

11. NO DEMANDS UPON CITY
Permittee shall be deemed to have accepted the condition of the Airport premises prior to its occupation and use thereof for the purposes of this Permit and shall make no demand upon City for any alterations, repairs or construction.

12. USE OF SALINAS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Permittee may use such areas and facilities at the Airport as are designated by the City’s Airport Manager. Permittee shall have the right to construct and maintain such temporary facilities and/or structures as are necessary for operations as allowed by this Permit, including controlling the ingress and egress of the public and Airshow participants. Said temporary facilities and/or structures must be satisfactory to the City’s Airport Manager. Upon the request of the City’s Airport Manager, Permittee shall remove said temporary facilities and/or structures.

13. DAMAGE TO SALINAS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Permittee shall cause to be repaired at its own expense, any and all damage to the property of the City or to the property of others on the Airport, which damage has been caused by Permittee, its agents, employees or others who may be on the Airport for any purpose connected with the staging and operation of the Airshow, including patrons of the Airshow. This provision applies to all aircraft moved from its normal and regular tiedown or parking space to make room for Airshow activity, until returned to its normal and regular tiedown or parking space. The Permittee accepts full legal liability and responsibility for all aircraft while located at 2024 Airshow Permit 12
other than its regular tiedown location until forty-eight (48) hours after the tiedown ramp has been vacated by Airshow facilities.

14. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
A. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25359.7, Permittee shall notify City in writing within a reasonable time of any material release of hazardous substances and of any hazardous substances that have come to be located on or beneath the Airport.

B. Prior to the expiration of this Permit, Permittee shall at its cost and expense remove all items of personal property, including but not limited to all flammable and hazardous materials and waste as defined by state, federal, or local law at the time of expiration of the Permit.

C. Permittee shall make available for inspection to the City all records relating to the maintenance, release, mitigation, and cleanup of any hazardous substances on the leased premises.

D. Permittee shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations relating to hazardous materials and waste, and shall timely comply with the orders of any governmental agencies relating thereto. Permittee shall request that a representative from Monterey County Environmental Health Department review hazardous material storage and use to determine that compliance with local laws and regulations has been obtained.

E. City may reasonably enter upon and inspect the premises at any time.

15. CHARGES BY PERMITTEE
A. Permittee shall have the right to charge admission to members of the public desiring to witness the events allowed by this Permit.

B. Persons desiring or required to use the Airport for its normal purposes shall not be charged an admission to specific areas required for the performance of their normal activity on the Airport; except, however, that Permittee may charge admission to occupants of transient aircraft arriving during the open hours period of this Permit and desiring to attend the Airshow. Persons not charged an admission shall include but not be limited to: City’s employees regularly employed at the Airport or required to work on the Airport as certified by the City’s Airport Manager; on site employees of businesses at the Airport; tenants leasing property 2024 Airshow Permit 13
from the City and conducting business on the flight line; owners of aircraft based at the Airport; and persons demonstrating a valid requirement to conduct business on the Airport.

16. FURTHER COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS
A. Throughout its operation and the operation of all its facilities on the Airport, neither Permittee nor any person or organization occupying space or facilities thereon will discriminate against any person or class of persons by reason of age, sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, blindness or other physical disability, in the use of any facilities provided for the public on the Airport.

B. Throughout Permittee’s rendering to the public any service (including the furnishings or sale of admission tickets, transportation, supplies or materials) essential to its operation at the Airport it will:
(1) Furnish such service on a fair, equal, and non-discriminatory basis to all users thereof; and (2) Charge fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory prices for each unit of service; provided that Permittee may be allowed to make reasonable and nondiscriminatory discounts, rebates, or other similar types of price reductions to volume purchasers.

C. This Permit shall be subject to the terms of the City’s agreements, as amended, with the FAA. If they conflict, provisions of the FAA agreements that implement federal law shall take precedence over provisions of this Permit.

D. Permittee shall abide and be bound by the Minority Business Enterprise Program, a copy of which has been provided to Permittee, adopted and as amended from time to time by the City pursuant to United States Department of Transportation regulations Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Subtitle A, Part 23, participation by disadvantaged business enterprises in Airport concessions, and Part 26, participation by Minority Business Enterprise in Department of Transportation programs, a copy of which has also been provided to Permittee.

E. Permittee will obey all rules, regulations, and orders of the FAA, California Aviation Office, and the City of Salinas, existing or as amended.

F. It is further understood and agreed that during the term of this Permit, Permittee shall use the Airport in an orderly and peaceable manner, and in strict compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances and shall 2024 Airshow Permit 14
not use the Airport, nor allow any person or persons to use the Airport, for any purpose whatsoever that is in violation of any law or ordinance.

17. NO ASSIGNMENT, DELEGATION, OR SUBLICENSING
This Permit, being in the nature of a personal revocable permit, may not be assigned or delegated.

However, Permittee may allow concessionaires to enter upon the Airport for the performance of functions and services within the scope of the uses allowed to Permittee under the provisions of this Permit.

18. RIGHT TO AMEND
This Permit shall be subordinate to the provisions of any existing or future agreement between City and the United States, by which City obtains federally owned surplus property or federal aid for the improvement, operation, and/or maintenance of the Airport. In the event that the FAA, or any other federal agency, requires modifications or changes in this Permit as a condition for the granting of funds for the improvement of the air terminal or lands or improvements covered by its laws, rules, or regulations, Permittee agrees to consent to the amendments, modifications, revisions, supplements, or deletions of any of the terms, conditions, or requirements of this Permit as may be required to obtain such funds.

19. SPECIAL PROVISION
It is understood and agreed that nothing contained in this Permit shall be construed as granting or authorizing the granting of an exclusive right for the use of any landing areas or air navigation facility at the Airport.

20. PERMITTEE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
For all the purposes of this Permit, Permittee is and shall be deemed to be, with respect to the City, an independent contractor. It is mutually agreed and understood that nothing contained in the Permit shall be deemed or construed to constitute a partnership or joint venture between the parties to this Permit. Moreover, it is agreed and understood that regarding the rights and obligations provided herein, this Permit establishes the extent of the relationship between the City and Permittee. It is agreed and understood that the City and Permittee are independent contractors and that neither is the employee or employer of the other and that employees of one are not the employees of the other.
2024 Airshow Permit 15

21. CANCELLATION BY CITY
In addition to any rights to which it may be entitled by law, City may cancel this Permit upon or after the occurrence of any of the following events:

A. The assumption by the United States Government, or any of its authorized agencies, of the operation, use or control of the Airport, or any substantial part of the Airport, in such manner as to substantially restrict the use of the Airport for any of the purposes for which Permittee is authorized; B. The existence or operation of any rule, regulation, sponsor assurance, or order of the FAA, directly or indirectly requiring the discontinuance or substantial reduction of the use of the Airport for any of the purposes for which Permittee is authorized;
C. The issuance of an injunction by any Court of competent jurisdiction restraining the use of the Airport for any of the purposes for which this Permit has authorized; D. Cancellation of any policy of insurance required by Section 9 of this Permit; E. The filing by Permittee of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, the institution of proceedings in bankruptcy against Permittee, or the adjudication on Permittee as a bankrupt pursuant to voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy proceedings;
F. The appointment of a receiver of Permittee’s assets which results in a liquidation of Permittee’s business;
G. The general assignment of this Permit by Permittee for the benefit of creditors; or H. The default by Permittee in the performance of any of the terms and conditions required by this Permit to be kept and performed.

22. CANCELLATION BY PERMITTEE
Permittee may cancel this Permit and terminate all of its obligations at any time subsequent to the commencement of the term upon the breach of City, or City’s failure to perform any of the material covenants or agreements contained in this Permit. In such a case, the Permit fee identified in Section 4 will be refunded to Permittee.

23. WAIVER
2024 Airshow Permit 16
It is agreed that a failure on the part of City to take appropriate action or to declare this Permit terminated for default by Permittee in any one or more of the terms, covenants or conditions will not be considered or construed as a waiver by the City of such right on any further or future default on the part of Permittee. Additionally, the subsequent acceptance of the fee by City shall not be construed as a waiver of City’s rights concerning any preceding breach of any term, covenant or condition by Permittee.

24. SURRENDER
Permittee covenants that on the last day of this Permit or any extension of it, Permittee will peaceably and quietly leave and surrender the Airport premises in as good a condition as they are now (or, may be in after making alterations, additions, or improvements as permitted by City) except for ordinary wear and tear.

25. ASSIGNMENT BY CITY
It is further agreed by and between City and Permittee that City reserves the right to assign, pledge, or hypothecate this Permit, without the consent of Permittee, should such assignment, pledging, or hypothecation become necessary in the financing or refinancing of the Salinas Municipal Airport.

26. SECTION HEADINGS
The section headings contained in this Permit are for convenience in reference and are not intended to define, govern, limit, modify, or in any manner affect the scope meaning, or intent of the provisions of this Permit.

27. TIME
Concerning this Permit and the performance of each and every provision contained herein, time is of the essence.

28. NOTICES
Except as otherwise contained herein, all notices, statements, demands, consents, approvals, authorizations, offers, agreements, appointments or designations hereunder by either party, shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given and served upon the other party if sent by mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows:

If to City, the same shall be addressed to:
2024 Airshow Permit 17
Airport Manager
City of Salinas
Salinas Municipal Airport
342 Airport Blvd.

Salinas, California 93905
With a copy to:

City Attorney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901
or to such other place as City may by such similar notice in writing designate.

If to Permittee, the same shall be addressed to:

Monterey County Airshow Association
P.O. Box 1448
Salinas, California 93902

29. LITIGATION INVOLVING PERMIT; ATTORNEY FEES
In case suit shall be brought to interpret or enforce this Permit, or any term of provision contained herein, or because of the breach of any term or provision contained herein, the prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to such costs as may be allowed by the court. City’s attorney’s fees, if awarded, shall be calculated at the market rate.

30. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER PERMIT
This Permit constitutes the entire agreement between the City and Permittee and is the final expression of the City and Permittee with respect to the included terms and conditions, and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms and conditions. Any prior agreements, premises, negotiations or representations not expressly set forth in this Permit are of no force and effect unless it is in writing and signed by the City and Permittee. By granting this Permit, the City does not intend to create any obligations express or implied other than those set out herein; further, this Permit shall not create any rights in any party not a signatory hereto.

31. SPONSORSHIP
A. Sponsorship Contribution From Airport Enterprise Fund. Pursuant to FAA Policies and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue: Federal Register Volume 64, No. 30, February 16, 1999, 2024 Airshow Permit 18
the City Attorney’s Office has determined that it is permissible for the City Council to authorize a sponsorship contribution from the Airport Enterprise Fund to the California International Airshow provided the following criteria are met:
(1) The contribution must be minimal.
(2) The contribution must be substantially related to the operation of the Airport. (3) The contribution must have the intangible benefit of enhancing the Airport’s acceptance in local communities impacted by the Airport.

B. Minimal Contribution. In consideration for waving the Administrative Fees and Facility Rental Fees for the Airshow, the minimal contribution for the Airshow Sponsorship has been met.

C. Enhancement of Airport Acceptance. To ensure and maximize the enhancement of the Airport’s acceptance in the local community, the following considerations will be made by the Permittee:
(1) Space will be provided in the event program or other publication, for the Airport to publish an educational article or be recognized.
(2) The City shall receive not less than the equivalent sponsorship benefits as other sponsors for equivalent/like sponsorship contributions, whether paid or in-kind. (3) City and or Airport logos will be included on banners and promotional materials similar to that of equal sponsors.
(4) Booth, vendor, and or concession space will be provided to the City of Salinas, at no charge. A total of three (3) spaces shall be reserved for the City’s uses. The sole use of the City spaces will be to promote and enhance the City’s image. The Airshow shall provide entrance credentials necessary for City Staff, volunteers, or contractors to administer the space.
(5) The Salinas Pilots Association (SPA) shall receive a $2,500.00 cash donation for volunteer services rendered during the airshow period. SPA will provide services and duties that are agreeable to SPA and Airshow Association. Historically this has 2024 Airshow Permit 19
included transient aircraft parking services and docent services for general aviation aircraft displays.

CITY OF SALINAS
_________________________________ ______________________________ Rene Mendez, City Manager Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________ ______________________________ Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney Date

MONTEREY COUNTY AIRSHOW ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED
______________________________ ______________________________ President Date
______________________________ ______________________________ Secretary Date
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#24-324, Version: 1
Rejection of Proposals for Demolition of the Old Police Department Building Approve a Resolution rejecting all proposals received for Engineering and Construction Management Services for the Demolition of the Old Police Department Building.

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 6, 2024
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, P.E., L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
THRU: ADRIANA ROBLES, P.E., C.F.M., CITY ENGINEER
BY: JONATHAN ESTEBAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: REJECTION OF PROPOSALS FOR ENGINEERING AND

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE

DEMOLITION OF THE OLD POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution rejecting all proposals received for Engineering and Construction Management Services for the Demolition of the Old Police Department Building.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On, May 10, 2024, the City issued a Request for Proposals for Engineering and Construction Management Services for the Demolition of the Old Police Department Building. On June 3, 2024, the City received one proposal for an amount of $588,862. Based on the low number of bid proposals received and the significantly higher than anticipated pricing, staff recommends rejection of the proposal.

BACKGROUND:

The Old Police Department Building, located at 222 Lincoln Avenue, has been vacant since 2019, when the Police Department moved to their current location at 312 East Alisal Street. The approximately 21,000 square foot single story building has a 2,800 square foot basement. The City issued a request for proposals (RFP) for engineering and construction management services for the demolition of the Old Police Department Building. On June 3, 2024, the proposal opening was held. A single proposal was received from CSG Consultants, Inc. for a total cost of $588,862.

The cost of this proposal is considerably higher than anticipated. The City does not have sufficient funds available to award this contract. City staff recommends rejection of all bids received for Engineering and Construction Management Services for the Demolition of the Old Police Department Building.

City will instead develop the plans and specifications for the project in-house and proceed with bidding for construction demolition once funds become available.

Page | 2
CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

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, Administration and Finance Departments.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no immediate fiscal impact anticipated with this proposed Council action.

ATTACHMENTS:

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

A RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR ENGINEERING

AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE DEMOLITION OF

THE OLD POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2024, the City issued a request for proposals for Engineering and Construction Management Services for the Demolition of the Old Police Department Building; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the City Clerk of Salinas on June 3, 2024, at a public meeting held via Zoom meeting from City Hall, at Salinas, California, publicly opened, examined, and declared all proposals delivered electronically via the PlanetBids website for Engineering and Construction Management Services for the Demolition of the Old Police Department Building in accordance with the project specifications; and
WHEREAS, the City received a single proposal for the call for engineering and construction management services from CSG Consultants, Inc., for a total cost of $588,862, significantly higher than anticipated and approximately 200% higher than the current available funds.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby rejects all proposals received for Engineering and Construction Management Services for the Demolition of the Old Police Department Building.

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#24-383, Version: 1
Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Harris and Associates for the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements, CIP 9009
Approve a Resolution approving Amendment No. 2 to amend and restate the Professional Services Agreement with Harris and Associates for the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements project to increase the schedule of the agreement and to increase the total compensation by $29,720 for a total compensation of $393,538.

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, DIRECTOR
BY: ADRIANA ROBLES, P.E., CFM, CITY ENGINEER
TITLE: AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALINAS AND HARRIS

AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CIP 9009
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution approving Amendment No. 2 with Harris and Associates for environmental consulting services to amend the scope of work, increasing the compensation by $29,720 for a revised not to exceed amount of $393,538, and extending the term to December 31, 2025.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On January 18, 2022, the City executed an agreement for $261,736 with Harris and Associates to perform design services for the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements (Resolution No. 22290). On August 8, 2023, through Resolution 22760 Council approved Amendment 1 to the professional services agreement for additional services and to extend the terms of the agreement.

As the design was being finalized, additional staff reviewed and provided comments to the design which required additional scope of work changes. The consultant continued work and provided construction documents. The project was bid on July 16, 2024, and additional assistance will be required from the consultant for construction. An amendment is required to extend the original contract time and to increase the total compensation to $393,538.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Salinas owns and operates an Industrial Wastewater Collection and Conveyance System (IWCCS) which takes agricultural process water from twenty-six (26) industrial users.

The system is comprised of network of piping, an industrial wastewater pump station (IWWPS), and the industrial waste treatment facility (IWTF). The IWWPS is located on Airport Boulevard in southeast Salinas and consists of a wet well and three underground pumps which convey industrial wastewater to the IWTF for processing. The City is conducting structural evaluation Page | 2
and facility upgrades that will ensure not only structural longevity of the pump station but also allow for increased flow capacity and redundancy.

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

Over the course of preparing the preliminary design documents staff was made aware of certain tasks that are required that were not in the original scope of work. These included additional design of a proposed permanent standby generator, generator pad and vault structure; additional flow monitoring; additional hydraulic analysis; site surveying to identify existing easements; corrosion protection assessment; and costs associated with time extensions. On August 8, 2023, through Resolution 22760, Council approved Amendment 1 to the professional services agreement. The additional scope represented a net increase of $102,082 to the original agreement resulting it a total amount of compensation to be paid under the contract of $363,818.

As the plans were being finalized, new City staff assigned to the division reviewed and provided comments to the design that required additional changes to the construction documents. These changes required modification of the plans, cost estimate and specifications. Changes were made by the consultant but required additional effort. The additional scope for Amendment No. 2 represents a net increase of $29,720.

The project was bid on July 16, 2024, and additional assistance will be required during construction. The original contract expired on December 31, 2023. An amendment is required to amend and restate the agreement to increase the contract time to December 31, 2025, and to increase the total amount of compensation to $393,538.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

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

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The proposed project and agreement meet the City Council’s Strategic Plan Initiatives of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability and Economic Development.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

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

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Page | 3
Funding is appropriated and available in 5800.50.9009 (CIP 9009, Industrial Wastewater Pump Station).

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Resolution 22760
Draft Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Professional Services for Environmental Consultants/ Contractors, City of Salinas and Harris and Associates for the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements
Amendment No. 1
Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. ________ (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMEND AND RESTATE

THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALINAS

AND HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS; CIP 9009
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas owns and operates an Industrial Wastewater Collection and Conveyance System which includes the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, the city authorized an agreement with Harris and Associates to perform the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements (Resolution No. 22290); and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2023 with Resolution 22760 Council approved Amendment 1 to the professional services agreement for additional services and to extend the terms of the agreement; and
WHEREAS, over the course of conducting the Industrial Wastewater Pump Station Improvements, additional services have been required that were not in the original scope of work; and
WHEREAS, the original professional service agreement expired in December 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the project was bid on July 16, 2024 and additional assistance will be required from the consultant for construction; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement was drafted to reflect these changes.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALINAS, that Amendment No. 2 with Harris and Associates for environmental services to amend the scope of work, increase the compensation by $29,720 for a revised not to exceed amount of $393,538, and extend the term to December 31, 2025is hereby approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of Salinas is hereby authorized and directed, for and on behalf of the City of Salinas, and as its act and deed, to execute the attached Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Salinas, a Charter City, and Harris and Associates, a California Corporation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute extensions and/or non-substantial modifications to the Agreement, as necessary.

PASSED ON APPROVED on this 20th of August 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
_______________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:

Page | 2
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

Page 1 of 3 ends

Salinas City CouncilAugust 20, 2024

Salinas City Council
August 20, 2024