Salinas City Council
December 9, 2025

Case Study
Item [1] Salinas Oxnard Antioch Mountain View Oakland San Diego [2] Richmond Sacramento Socioeconomic Factors (2023)
Total Housing Units 43,649 54,494 36,850 35,973 175,640 531,259 39,245 197,362 Households 157,083 195,793 114,712 83,311 409,417 1,307,002 111,924 505,137 Persons per Household 3.60 3.59 3.11 2.32 2.33 2.46 2.85 2.56 Renter-Occupied Housing
Total 22,437 22,668 13,637 20,589 96,383 264,566 96,383 941 Persons per Household 3.93 3.99 3.25 2.23 2.21 2.45 2.89 2.45 Renter Median Household Income $64,509 $68,872 $61,411 $153,279 $68,434 $75,291 $62,537 $56,131 Median Rent $1,795 $1,907 $2,150 $2,855 $1,849 $2,080 $1,853 $1,592 Estimated Average Rent Burden 33% 33% 42% 22% 32% 33% 36% 34% % Rent Burden Households 52% 57% 62% 37% 48% 52% 56% 51% Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Peer City_ Matrix_7.30.24.xlsx 29

Case Study
Item [1] Salinas Oxnard Antioch Mountain View Oakland San Diego [2] Richmond Sacramento Rent Stabilization Factors
Article Name N/A Rent Stabilization Ordinance
No.3013
Rent Stabilization Ordinance No.
2219-C-S
Community Stabilization and Fair Rent
Act
Rent Adjustment Program O.M.C.

Section 8.22.010 (RAP)
N/A Richmond Fair Rent, Just
Cause for Eviction and
Homeowner Protection
Ordinance Chapter 11.100
Sacramento Tenant
Protection Act Ordinance.
2019-0025 § 2
Municipal Code N/A Chapter 1 of Title 11, Section 11-

1.01 Part 1 Article 17 Title 8 Chapter 8.22 N/A Chapter 11.100 Title 5 Chapter 5.156 Tenant Protection
Year Adopted N/A 2022 2022 2016 1980 (Ordinance No. 9980 C.M.S.) but it was amended many times from 1980
to 2023. Current Ordinance is O.M.C.

Section 8.22.010 et seq.)
N/A 2017 2019
Expiration Year N/A 2030 N/A N/A - N/A N/A 2024
Increase N/A Limits rent increases to one rent
increase per 12-month period not to
exceed 4%
Limits rent increases to one rent
increase per 12-month period not to
exceed lesser of 3% or 60% of the
most recent 12-month increase in
the CPI for All Urban Consumers in
the San Francisco Oakland-
Hayward Area
Limits rents to no less than 2%, no
more than 5%
In June 2022, the City Council has
adopted an amendment to change the
formula used to calculate the annual
allowable rent increase to 60% of the
change in CPI, or 3%, whichever is
lower. (per 12-month period)
N/A On November 8, 2022,
Richmond Measure P limit rent
increases for regulated units to
3% or 60% of the Consumer
Price Index, whichever is less.
(per 12-month period)
Evert April 1st the annual
rent adjustment is 5% plus
the percentage of the
annual increase in the cost
of living adjustment, if any,
but not to exceed a
combined total of 10%. A
tenant may not waive this
limitation on the increase
in rent.

Fees N/A
Fee amount not yet established. The
City is currently performing a
research study.

Fee amount not yet established. $108 per unit $101 per unit N/A $220/Controlled rental unit $125/Partially covered rental
unit
$20 flat rate
Other N/A - N/A -minimum of 3+ units The Oakland Rent Adjustment Ordinance allows an annual rent
increase based on the regional
Consumer Price Index (CPI) without a
petition.

If the owner does not give a RAP
notice, the landlord cannot increase the
rent until 6 months after the tenant
receives the notice.

N/A N/A Staff can impose
administrative penalties
against landlords for
violation of the ordinance
which can range from
$100 to $25,000 per
violation.

Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Peer City_ Matrix_7.30.24.xlsx 30

Case Study
Item [1] Salinas Oxnard Antioch Mountain View Oakland San Diego [2] Richmond Sacramento Rent Stabilization Factors
Legal Issues N/A Passed in a 5-2 vote.
-Concern of not enough affordable
housing stock. Fear that the new
ordinances may exacerbate the
housing shortage.

City Counsel voted 3-2 for a Rent
Stabilization Ordinance. Concerns
for Mom-and-Pop renters and
disagreement with limit
percentages.
-Organizers claim renters in
apartments received rent increases
between $200 and $700 per month
threatening to displace them.
-Other speakers believe Antioch
should build more homes not focus
on rent control.
-Landlords protested and requested
regulations that do not affect base rent.
-April (2024), the Rental Housing
Committee in Mountain View rejected a
proposal related to rent reduction
guidelines in a 2-4 vote.
-Mountain View experienced an
increase in the number of petitions filed
by tenants and appeals from tenants
and landlords challenging the decisions
of hearing officers.

The City Council voted 6-1 for an
ordinance to stabilize rents.
-Despite amending their Rent ordinance
multiple times, at the time of the most
recent ordinance amendment renters
were claiming to have 7% rent
increases, which could force them out
of their home (in 2022).

N/A N/A A significant number of
landlords objected to the
wording in the act, which
was approved with a 7-to-
1 vote. Low-income
residents also voiced their
concerns during the
meeting, stating that a 10
percent cap on yearly rent
increases is inadequate.

Additional Renter Protection Programs N/A -Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization (MHRS)
-Tenant Protection Ordinance 3012-
Just Cause
-No-fault Just Cause Evictions
Ordinance 3042
-Urgency Ordinance Regarding No-
Fault Just Cause Evictions
Ordinance 3041
-Tenant Protection Ordinance No.
2232-C-S
-Bay Area Legal Aid
-Contra Costa Senior Legal
Services
-California Civil Rights Department
-Tuesday Tenant Legal Clinic
-Housing Help Center for Tenants
(HHC)
-Fair Housing Services
-Mediation Program
-Emergency Assistance Program
-Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance
(Measure EE) Section 8.22.300
-Tenant Protection Ordinance Section

8.22.600
-Residential Tenant Protections
Ordinance 21647 N.S.
-Housing Stability Assistance
Program (COVID-19)
-California Western Community
Law Project
-Legal Aid Society of San Diego
Affordable Housing Advocates
-San Diego Regional Alliance for
Fair Housing (SDRAFFH)
-Renter Assistance Resources
-Renter Relief Program
-Richmond Rapid Response
Fund (R3F)
-Tenant Protection
Program
-Emergency Rental
Assistance Program
Grounds for Landlord Rent Increase
Petitions
Landlord must substantiate their
claim that the Ordinance has
impeded their ability to achieve a fair
return. Explanation of claim and
accompanying evidence must satisfy
the following condition: "The 4%
annual limitation imposed by the City
of Oxnard Rent Stabilization
Ordinance has prevented the
petition owner from receiving a fair
and reasonable return on the
[identified] property".
- Maintenance of Net-Operating
Income (MNOI)
- MNOI with Amortized Operating
Expenses (includes Capital
Improvement costs and legal
expenses)
- Other Grounds
Applicable factors Hearing Officer
may consider when determining
outcome of Fair Return Petition:
- Changes in CPI
- Time since last Rent increase
or
Rent increase application
- Capital Improvements (inc.
materials, labor, construction
interest, permit fees) amortized
over period not less than 60
mo
nths
- Rehab work amortized over
period not less than 36 months
- Changes in property taxes or
other taxes related to the
subject real property
- Changes in utility charges
- Changes in reasonable
operating
and maintenance expenses
- Repairs caused by
circumstances other than
ordinary wear and tear
- Amount and quality of services
- Maintenance of Net Operating Income
(MNOI): "provides for rent increases if
necessary to ensure that the net
operating income earned in the petition
year is at least equal to the inflation-
adjusted net operating income earned
in the base year."
- Specified Capital Improvement
Petitions: allows a temporary increase
in rent for qualifying improvements. The
maximum increased allowed under this
petition is:
- Capped at 5% of annual rent (not
including the Annual General
Adjustment)
- Amortized over a specific time
period
for each type of improvement
- Limited by the number of units on
the
property (associated values reflect
the maximum percentage of costs
that can be passed through to
tenants)
- 1-5 units on property: 90%
- 6-20 units on property: 75%
- >20 units on property: 50%
- Capital improvements: Allows a 70%
cost pass-through (plus interest) to
tenants, divided among affected units
and amortized over the improvement's
expected life.
- Uninsured repair costs: Allows pass-
through of costs for compliance-related
repairs from natural disasters, not
covered by insurance.
- Increased Housing Service Costs:

Permits rent increases above CPI due
to rising net operating costs. Replaces
CPI increase for the current year and
applies to all units.
- Fair Return: Allows rent increases
when NOI indicates the owner is denied
a fair return, replacing CPI increases for
all years.
- Banking: Deferred annual rent
increases can be carried over ("banked)
for up to 10 years without prior
approval, unless combined with other
petitions.
- Additional Occupant(s): Allows up to a
5% rent increase for occupants
exceeding the base level, excluding
covered family members, legal
guardians, and caretakers.
- Tenant Not Residing in Unit as
Principal Residence: Allows for
unrestricted rent increase
For its Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher program, the San
Diego Housing Commission
permits landlords to increase
rents if the requested amount is
deemed "reasonable." The
SDHC determines this by
evaluating comparable units
within the same complex and the
broader market.
- Maintenance of Net Operating
Income (MNOI)
- Increase in Number of
Occupants: Allows an increase
of up to 15% for each additional
occupant above base
occupancy level, in addition to
any Maximum Allowable Rent
adjustment to which the
Landlord is otherwise entitled.

Excludes family members, legal
guardians and caretakers.
- Change in Space or Services:

Increase in usable space or in
Housing Services. Rent
increase request
commensurate with the cost
increase associated with the
change in space or service.
- Restoration of Denied Annual
General Adjustments: Allows
landlords to recover AGAs
previously denied due to code
violations, non-payment of
Rental Housing Fees, or failure
to comply with orders from a
Hearing Examiner or Rent
Board (or other reasons).
- Increase in Security Deposit
Due to Addition of Pet(s)
Six options for valid
claims:
- Cap improvements (a)
necessary for safety and
health and are not routine
maintenance/repair or (b)
substantial repair outside
of normal wear and tear
(uninsured disaster or
vandalism)
- "Unavoidable" increases
in operating expenses
- Increases in Housing
Services costs
- Tenant number increase
leading to operating or
capital improvement
expense increases
- Property tax increases
above standard 2%
- Cost of debt service due
to purchase of the rental
property by new owner
.

Does not include refi or
variable rate loan
Source: Cities of Oxnard, Antioch, Mountain View, Oakland, and San Diego; EPS. [2] The City of San Diego adopted the California Assembly Bill 1482 rent cap, which the limits rent increases to 5 percent plus the percentage change of CPI or 10 percent, whichever is lower. [1] California Assembly Bill 1482 also known as the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, was signed into law in September 2019 and it was established to address the state's housing affordability crisis by imposing statewide rent control measures and provide just cause eviction protection for tenants. The bill caps annual rent increases at 5 percent plus the local rate of inflation, with a maximum limit of 10 percent. In response to AB 1482, some cities in California have established additional rent stabilization ordinances to further protect tenants. These local ordinances often provide stricter rent control measures and additional tenant protection beyond the statewide law. However, there are exceptional cities that enacted rent control ordinances before the California Assembly Bill 1482, such as City of Oakland.Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Peer City_ Matrix_7.30.24.xlsx 31 Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 32
As discussed later in Chapter 4, enforcing the rent stabilization ordinance creates the need for additional staffing at a cost to the City, even if enforced on a complaint-driven basis. To help alleviate some of the financial burden, some jurisdictions opt to charge a fee to the property owners of the rent stabilized units. The cities of Oxnard and Antioch have not established their fee amounts but plan to at a later time. Mountain View charges $108 per unit, and Oakland charges $101 per unit.

These are rent stabilization concerns from the City Council and the communities:
• The Ordinance will negatively affect smaller “mom-and-pop” building owners, and it should be directed more at corporate owners.
• The City should focus on building more housing, not focus solely on rent stabilization.
• The Ordinance will drive up landlord costs, causing them to go out of business, and accelerating housing shortages or corporate owners to take over the buildings.
• California Apartment Association representatives argue that protections are already covered by State law: AB 1482.
• The question of the equity of the economic effects created by the potential policy. For example, the Ordinance will affect a landlord’s income, but for tenants, the Ordinance affects both their discretionary income and their access to housing.

Literature Review and Case -Study
Conclusions
The literature review and case-study findings indicate the potential for the following positive and negative outcomes.

Pros to Rent Stabilization
• Reduces renter displacement by about 20 percent and has a significant impact in preventing the displacement of racial minorities and other vulnerable renter populations.
• Increases benefits to low-income households:
‒ Housing.
‒ Decreased rental expenditure.
‒ Neighborhood stability.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 33
Cons to Rent Stabilization
• Very little to no negative effect on property value.
• Slight reduction in rental supply through condominium conversions, building redevelopment, and reduced tenant turnover.
• May increase rents as landlords react to the policy.
• If the policy does NOT allow for increases of housing services to be valued at their market price, it may disincentivize building improvements and maintenance.

While the jurisdictions analyzed in the case study implemented varying allowed rent income percentages and fee program amounts, one of the key takeaways is the emphasis on the importance of educating the community, property owners, and developers on rent stabilization. In addition, acknowledging that rent stabilization is not the single solution, and it is one part of a larger toolkit that, along with other policies and incentives, can help alleviate some housing cost pressures. Taken in combination with other policies that encourage additional supply, it can be part of a multi-pronged effort to improve the outlook for residents struggling to afford housing.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 34
Economic and Fiscal Impacts of
Rent Stabilization
This chapter describes the composition of the City’s housing supply and renter population to shed light on likely fiscal and economic implications of the Ordinance, if approved, followed by discussion of the potential economic implications for property owners.

Housing Supply
The City has more than 44,500 total residential units, with 97 percent occupancy (43,070 occupied units). Of the total inventory, 52 percent comprises rental units and 51 percent is occupied by renters, as shown in Table 4-1 and Appendix A Table A-1, Table A-2, Table A-3, and Table A-4. All the rental properties would be subject to the just-cause portion of the proposed Ordinance; however, because of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, single-family homes, condominiums, and all housing built after 1995 are exempt from rent stabilization. As shown in Figure 2, Table 4-1, and Appendix A Table A-5 and Table A-6, these statewide exemptions would cover 35 percent of the City’s rental inventory and 81 percent of total housing inventory. More than half of the City’s occupied housing comprises renters (53 percent), a rental housing portion of 7 percentage points higher than the State overall (44 percent). As a result, whether Costa-Hawkins is repealed or maintained, the proposed Ordinance would have some impact on the City’s housing market.

As noted in the literature review section, research indicates that rent stabilization has the potential to cause landlords to sell off units. Single-family homes are most likely to be sold in response to rent stabilization because they are the easiest to convert to for-sale housing, as opposed to shifting multifamily rentals to condominiums; however, given that State law currently exempts single- family units from rent stabilization, the scale of conversion is likely to be relatively small, unless California voters overturn Costa-Hawkins. Single-family attached and detached homes account for 38 percent of the City’s occupied rental housing. If this portion of rental properties was sold in response to the Ordinance, it may lead to a significant reduction in rental supply. Conversely, this phenomenon would also lead to an increase in for-sale housing, which could increase home ownership opportunities. The fiscal impact of housing stock being sold in response to the proposed Ordinance could lead to a short-term gain in property transfer taxes and an increase in property taxes because of a realignment of the taxes with market value. Conversely, over the long term, this phenomenon could decrease overall affordability in the rental market by reducing rental supply.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 35
Table 4-1. Summary of Housing Inventory as it Relates to Rent Stabilization: City of Salinas (2022)

Figure 2. Housing Inventory as it Relates to Rent Stabilization: City of Salinas (2022)

Item Total
Residential Units [1]
Total Units 44,503 100.0% 52.0%
Tot
al Rental Inventory 23,132 52.0% 100.0%
Total Renter-Occupied 22,794 51.2% 98.5%
Total Exempt Units 36,173 81.3% 35.3%
Total Units Qualifying for Rent Stabilization 8,330 18.7% 36.0% Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; CoStar; EPS. [1] See Table A-6.

City of Salinas
% of Total
Housing
Inventory

Rental
Housing
Inventory

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 36
Affordable Housing Supply
As shown in Table 4-2 and Appendix A Table A-7, the City has approximately 3,240 deed-restricted affordable housing units, most of which were constructed after 1995. These units are essentially already rent-stabilized and likely would not be impacted by the proposed ordinance.

Table 4-2. Affordable Housing Inventory: City of Salinas

Residential Property Tax
Property tax accounts for about 21 percent of Salinas’ total General Fund revenues.52 Thus, to the extent that rent stabilization materially affects the performance of the City’s housing markets, the proposed Ordinance could affect the City’s fiscal outlook through property-related taxes. Rent stabilization policies can potentially impact property-related revenues in multiple ways, as described below:
• Conversion of rental housing to ownership. To the extent that the Ordinance incentivizes landlords to sell rental housing, these properties would be reassessed to prevailing market values. Because of Proposition 13, the assessed value of most property that has remained under the same ownership

52 https://www.cityofsalinas.org/files/sharedassets/city/v/1/finance/documents/fy_2023_adopted_o perating_budget.pdf
Item
Median
Year Built
Total
Units
% of
Rental
Housing
Affordable Housing [1]
Apartment Units 2003 2,654 11.5%
Other Afford. Units 1998 587 2.5%
Total Affordable Units 2001 3,241 14.0%
[1] See Table A-7.

City of Salinas
Source: Costar; HUD National Low Income Housing Tax Credit 1987- 2022 Data; EPS.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 37
for multiple years is typically well below its true market value.53 This pattern is often more acute for rental property, which tends to exhibit lower market turnover rates relative to owner-occupied units. Thus, any increase in housing sales attributable to the Ordinance would likely generate at least a temporary increase in property-related tax revenues such as property tax, property transfer tax, and motor vehicle in-lieu payments.
• Reduced assessed value of rent-stabilized properties. By limiting rent increases to a specified percentage of the CPI, the proposed Ordinance essentially mandates a gradual decline in the real rents of affected properties over time. This effect will, in turn, limit the income-generating potential of these properties and ultimately their economic and market values. However, because of the impact of Proposition 13 on assessed values, as noted above, it is likely that only a portion of residential rental properties would be eligible for a reassessment in their taxable value. Specifically, recently transacted multifamily properties, that is, those that have been recently purchased, are most likely to have assessed values that are most closely aligned with prevailing market prices. In these circumstances, some new property owners ultimately may file assessment appeals if the values of their properties do not keep pace with inflation because real rental revenue is declining over time.

The impact of this effect on property taxes will depend on the portion of multifamily rental housing that was recently transacted. In the last 5 years, 74 multifamily properties have been sold in Salinas, according to CoStar.

Almost 96 percent of these properties (71) were built before 1995 and would therefore be subject to rent stabilization. These properties are most at risk for assessment repeals under the premise that the income stream estimated at purchase will now be restricted. The 71 properties account for 1,277 units, or 5.5 percent of the City’s total rental housing inventory. The potential impact of reassessments is likely to be more pronounced if Costa-Hawkins is overturned.

In addition to property tax payments, any change in property values would impact the City’s property tax in-lieu of vehicle license fee revenue received from the State. The State sends cities these funds based on the gross assessed valuation of taxable property in the jurisdiction. Therefore, if the proposed ordinance were to result in a decrease (or increase) in assessed values, the City would receive lower (or higher) revenue from the State.

The significance of the potential impacts of rent stabilization on housing values and in turn, property taxes, depends on the value makeup of Salinas’ rental stock.

Based on 2023 assessed value data, residential property accounted for 67 percent

53 California passed Proposition 13 in 1978 to limit property tax increases. Property taxes are based on a property’s purchase price, each year thereafter, the property’s taxable value increases by 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 38
of the citywide assessed value. As shown in Table 4-3 and Figure 3, single- family properties comprised almost 82 percent of the residential assessed value, while multifamily rental units, including duplexes and triplexes, accounted for about 13 percent of residential assessed value. As noted previously, under Costa- Hawkins, rent stabilization will only apply to the portion of multifamily units that were built before 1995. Therefore, any property value impacts caused by the proposed Ordinance will impact properties accounting for less than 13 percent of the City’s residential assessed value.

Table 4-3. Real Estate Assessed Values: City of Salinas (2023)

Figure 3. Breakdown of the City of Salinas Assessed Value by Land Use (2023)

Item Total % of Total
Residential Land Use
Single-Family $11,637,215,636 81.9%
Multifamily $1,804,679,180 12.7%
Condo $662,840,239 4.7%
Mobile home Park $101,282,848 0.7%
Residential Total $14,206,017,903 100.0%
Total Citywide Assessed Value $21,169,840,831 67.1%
Source: ParcelQuest, Monterey County Secured Tax Roll, 2023; EPS.

City of Salinas
Residential Assessed Value

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 39
Rent Pressures and Displacement
Salinas’ low-income households have experienced significant overcrowding and displacement pressures primarily caused by rising house prices and the influx of higher income households. Although Salinas has experienced a 23 percent increase in median income over the past decade, the growth has come from households with annual incomes above $75,000; the City experienced a net decrease in households in every income category below $75,000. The increase in household incomes may be explained by the increase in persons per household or increased income disparity.

Average rents for multifamily units have continually increased at a higher rate, compared with the increase in the median income for renter-occupied households, as shown in Figure 4, with the exception of 2018 and 2022, which both followed years with very large percentage increase gaps between rents and income. Rents in multifamily buildings built before 1995 in Salinas have increased by 117 percent between 2000 and 2024, with an average vacancy of only

3.3 percent, as shown in Appendix A Table A-8.

In addition, as an agriculture-based economy, Salinas has a bifurcated population, with farm workers who serve the community not being able to afford to live there.

A 2018 study done for the Salinas Valley and Pajaro Valley regions indicated a farmworker housing shortage of more than 45,500 units .54
As a result of the disparity between increases in rents and household incomes, lack of farmworker housing, overcrowding, and displacement have become pressing issues facing the community, creating overcrowding by causing households to double up or move, redistributing demand to southern Monterey County and other locations.

In addition to the influx of higher income households, the cost of living in Salinas has remained high, in line with Monterey County overall. As shown in Figure 4, rents have increased an average of about 5 percent each year since 2012, with a spike in rent between 2020 and 2021, with an almost 13 percent increase, and then resuming regular increases over the past 2 years.
55 A little more than half
of the City’s renter-occupied households remain rent-burdened, paying 30 percent or more of their household income on housing, as shown in Table 4-4.

54 Farmworker Housing Study and Action Plan for Salinas Valley and Pajaro Valley, prepared by California Institute for Rural Studies, June 2018.
55 The years time trend between 2012 to 2022 was analyzed based on availability of ACS data at the time this Study was completed. For renter-household incomes, rents are based on CoStar, which provides more up-to-date data out to the most recently completed month of the current year.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 40
Rent-burdened households have less money to spend on other essentials like food, transportation, healthcare, and childcare.

Figure 4. Year-Over-Year Percentage Change in Median
Renter-Occupied Household Income versus Average MFR Rent for Apartments Built Before 1995: City of Salinas: 2012-2022/2024 [1]

Source: CoStar; ACS 5-year Estimates Table B25119; BLS; EPS.

1.9% 2.7%

4.0%

11.5%

7.9%

7.6%

5.0%

2.4%

6.9%

12.8%
(3.2%)

6.4%

0.81%
(1.0%) (1.5%)

0.9% 1.3%

3.3%

1.2% 5.3%

2.8%

5.6% 2.4%

4.9%
(10.0%)
(5.0%)

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Average MFR Rent Median Renter HH Income
[1] See Appendix A Table A-8 and Table A-9.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 41
Table 4-4. Rent-Burdened Households: City of Salinas (2012 & 2022)

Based on renter mobility/displacement data, it appears that other economic factors may be more significant than rent stabilization in impacting renter movement. Table 4-5 compares the percentage of renters living in the same unit as the previous year in Salinas compared to other communities with rent stabilization. Mountain View adopted their rent stabilization in 2017 but continually shows significantly lower rates of renters staying in the same units than the State overall. This may be caused by a prevalence of students and young professionals that stay for short periods, which may also be a factor in San Diego.

Salinas and four of the comparable cities experienced an increase in renters remaining in the same unit between 2017 and 2022, likely based on two contributing factors. First, rent stabilization ordinances and amendments were approved in 2022 in Oxnard, Antioch, and Oakland and are a likely result from a State-approved rent stabilization ordinance in 2020 that limited rent increases and prevented evictions until September 2021. San Diego adopted AB 1482 in 2023, indicating that the increase in renters staying longer in San Diego and Salinas was also a likely result from the State-approved rent stabilization ordinance passed in 2020. Second, the decrease in housing movement also may be contributed by ever-rising housing costs.

Item
Total Renter
Households
% of Total Renter
Households
Total Renter
Households
% of Total Renter
Households
Rent as a Percentage of
Household Income [1]
Less than 30% of Income 8,908 39.4% 10,245 44. 9%
30% to 50% of Income 6,934 30.6% 6,086 26. 7%
More than 50% of Income 6,007 26.5% 5,837 25. 6%
Total Renter Households 22,637 100.0% 22,794 100. 0%
2022
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25070; EPS. [1] The US Department of Housing and Urban Development defines a household spending more than 30% of their income on housing as "rent burdened." Households spending more than 50% of their income on housing are consi
dered "severely rent burdened." Approximately 612 households were not computed. 2012
City of Salinas
Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 42
Table 4-5. Renter Movement by City

Renter Household Socioeconomics
Literature indicates that current renting residents benefit the most from rent stabilization and eviction protections. However, because rent stabilization policies are not means-tested, a question arises about the socioeconomic status of the intended beneficiaries. As shown in Table 4-6, renter-occupied households in Salinas have lower incomes per capita than households who own their homes.

Therefore, although the proposed Ordinance is not means-tested, it will on average benefit households with lower than median incomes.

Table 4-6. City Salinas Median Income, Average Household Size, and Income per Capita by Household Tenure: City of Salinas (2022)

Item Salinas Antioch Oakland San Diego
2022
Renting HH's 88,229 91,491 44,663 46,179 232,184 653,750 Renters Living in the Same Unit as Previous Year 78,316 83,432 37,351 33,083 194,535 509,207 % of Renters Living in the Same Unit as Previous Year 89% 91% 84% 72% 84% 78% 2017
Renting HH's 86,183 98,722 43,516 44,122 235,423 692,471 Renters Living in the Same Unit as Previous Year 76,550 84,213 32,785 31,914 190,430 519,901 % of Renters Living in the Same Unit as Previous Year 89% 85% 75% 72% 81% 75% 2012
Renting HH's 83,660 87,636 37,825 41,497 211,425 624,587 Renters Living in the Same Unit as Previous Year 67,496 69,937 23,987 29,128 163,262 450,068 % of Renters Living in the Same Unit as Previous Year 81% 80% 63% 70% 77% 72% Source: ACS 2022 5-Year estimate Table B07013; EPS.

Oxnard
Mountain
View
Item
Household Tenure
Owner-occupied $107,679 3.32 $32,433
Renter-occupied $64,509 3.58 $18,019
Total Households $84,250 3.46 $24,350
Source: ACS 2022 5-Year estimate Table B25010 and Table B25119; EPS.

Median
Household
Income
Average
Household Size
Income per
Capita
City of Salinas
Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 43
In addition, the affordability crisis disproportionately affects people of color because these communities are over-represented in the renter population.

As shown in Table 4-7, Latinx residents and residents of Some Other Race in Salinas make up larger shares of the renter population than in the City overall.

The pattern of disparity of affordability for people of color is not unique to Salinas; it is prevalent in most U.S. cities and is driven primarily by a history of racially restrictive housing covenants, redlining, and discriminatory lending. Because of existing racial disparities in home ownership, policies that protect renters like rent stabilization and just-cause eviction protections are most likely to benefit Salinas’ Latinx residents.

Table 4-7. Householder Race: City of Salinas (2022)

Item
Renter-
Occupied
Owner-
Occupied Citywide
Householder Race
White 24.1% 41.0% 32.1%
Latinx (Hispanic or Latino) 80.4% 59.3% 70.5%
Asian 4.4% 9.2% 6.6%
Some Other Race 60.8% 35.4% 48.9%
Two
of More Races 8.0% 11.7% 9.7%
Black 1.6% 1.3% 1.5%
Indigenous (Native American and Alaksa Native) 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S2502; EPS.

City of Salinas Housing Units
Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 44
Salinas’ renter population also skews younger than the City’s population overall.

As indicated in Table 4-8, residents above the age of 65 account for approximately 12 percent of the City’s renters, compared to residents under 35, which account for almost 30 percent of the renter population. However, older renters may be one of the groups most positively impacted by rent stabilization because many seniors live on fixed incomes. Noting that not every renter lives in a unit that falls under the rent stabilization building qualifications, the effect of the proposed Ordinance will impact less than the total renter population.

Table 4-8. Householder Age: City of Salinas (2022)

Item Total % Total % T otal %
Householder Age
Under 35 years 6,468 28.4% 1,572 7. 8% 8,040 18.7%
35 to 44 years 6,576 28.8% 3,564 17. 6% 10,140 23.5%
45 to 54 years 4,563 20.0% 4,664 23. 0% 9,227 21.4%
55 to 64 years 2,561 11.2% 4,565 22. 5% 7,126 16.5%
Over 65 years 2,626 11.5% 5,914 29. 2% 8,540 19.8%
Total 22,794 100.0% 20,279 100.0% 43, 073 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S2502; EPS.

City of Salinas Housing Units
Renter-Occupied Owner-Occupied Citywide
Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 45
A comparison of the median renter income compared with average monthly rents between 2012 and 2022 for the comparable cities reflect a large disparity between the increases in rent compared to the increases in income for the cities with recent adoptions or no rent stabilization in place. See Table 4-9. The cities with recent or no rent stabilization in place—including Salinas, Oxnard, Antioch, and San Diego—experienced high increases in average rent, ranging from about 38 percent up to almost 50 percent, compared to proportionally lower increases in renter median household income from 18 percent to 33 percent. Both Mountain View and Oakland have had rent stabilization policies in place and both cities experienced higher increases in rental household incomes compared to increases in average rent. This indicates rent stabilization policies actually do help control increases in rent, helping maintain a balance in inflation.

Table 4-9. Median Renter Household Income compared to Average Monthly Rent (2012 and 2022)

Economic Impact on Property Owner
The proposed Ordinance also needs to consider the implications of reduced rents for the property owners resulting from rent stabilization. While a rent stabilization policy restricts annual rent adjustments, costs of operating and maintaining residential properties to their current standard will continue to increase. However, with vacancy decontrol, vacated units revert to the current market rate, helping to offset some of reduction in rental revenue to landlords.

Item Salinas Oxnard Anti och Mountain View Oakland San Diego Year RSO Adopted -- 2022 2022 2016 1980
Median Renter Household Income (2022$)
2012 [1] $48,547 $55,058 $52,256 $100, 070 $45,906 $60,767 2022 $64,509 $68,872 $61,411 $153, 279 $68,434 $75,291
% Change 32.9% 25.1% 17.5% 53. 2% 49.1% 23.9%
Average Monthly Effective Rent [2]
2012 $1,070 $1,193 $994 $2,050 $1, 318 $1,289
2022 $1,859 $1,942 $1,647 $2, 675 $1,701 $2,093
% Change 73.7% 62.8% 65.7% 30. 5% 29.1% 62.4%
Percentage Point Difference Rent Inc. to Income 40.9% 37.7% 48.2% (22.68% ) (20.02%) 38.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2012 & 2022, Table S1901; CoStar; EPS. [1] The median household incomes reported by ACS are inflation-adjusted to constant dollars. [2] This data reflects market rate multifamily apartment units built before 1995 from CoStar.

Comparable Cities
AB 1482 as of
2023
Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 46
Rental Revenue Impact
Each year, a share of units in rent-stabilized buildings/complexes will be vacated by existing tenants and replaced by new tenants. As noted above, with vacancy decontrol, the vacated units will be eligible for rental at current market rates.

It has been found that the average length of tenure in units, or turnover, decreases with rent stabilization by about 20 percent. For Salinas, a 20 percent reduction in turnover translates to an average turnover of 11 percent.

For purposes of analyzing the effects of rent stabilization on property owners, EPS modeled rental revenue and operating expenses for a hypothetical 100-unit existing apartment complex, occupied at the current market average occupancy rate of 97 percent, with current rents at the market average for pre-1995 apartments.

Several scenarios were modeled to compare the impact of different rent stabilization thresholds: Base Case, using the recent market rent growth rate of 3.35 percent; 100 percent of CPI (currently 3 percent); 80 percent of CPI; and 60 percent of CPI. Estimated rent rolls were developed for each scenario, assuming each year 11 percent of units are vacated, re-rented at current market rents under the vacancy decontrol provision, and escalated annually according to the assumed rate for that scenario.

The effect of the vacancy decontrol provision is a lessening of the overall reduction in potential rental revenues collected by landlords, while maintaining rent stabilization for existing tenants and for future tenants after occupancy.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 47
The overall effect on rental income for the 4 scenarios described above is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Rental Revenue Differential: Market Rate vs Stabilization Alternatives

As shown in the figure above, after factoring in vacancy decontrol, the estimated reduction in rental revenue by the tenth year of rent stabilization ranges from a 2 percent reduction with a rent growth cap at 100 percent of CPI to an 8 percent reduction with a rent growth cap at 60 percent of CPI.56

56 Assumes annual turnover of 11 percent (20 percent lower than current turnover without rent stabilization) and annual market-rate rent growth of 3.35 percent. -2%
-5%
-8%
Market Rate
100% of CPI
80% of CPI
60% of CPI
Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 48
Figure 6 provides a summary of the estimated effective annual growth rate in rental revenue for different rent stabilization rates, after factoring in vacancy decontrol.

Figure 6. Effective Rent Roll Growth with Vacancy Decontrol by Rent Stabilization Rate

In low or moderate inflation years, stabilized rents typically will increase based on the adopted percentage of CPI growth. However, in years with higher inflation, the adopted maximum rate of rent growth provides a cap on the rent increases that would otherwise be allowed based on the percentage of CPI. Figure 7 provides a comparison of the allowable rent increases at different rates of inflation (CPI) under alternative rent stabilization rates (65 percent to 75 percent of CPI) to illustrate at what level of inflation the adopted flat rates would take effect.

The proposed flat rate caps would take effect at about 3.5 to 4.0 percent inflation (CPI).

Figure 7. Inflation and Corresponding Allowable Rental Increases

Measure 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Effective Rent Roll Growth Rate [1][2] 2.50% 2.58% 2.66% 2.74% 2.83% 2.91% 2.99% 3.07% 3.16% Source: US Census; Costar; EPS.
[2] Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR).

Rent Stabilization Rate - % CPI
[1] Assumes 11% turnover (20% reduction from current state due to rent stabilization), average CPI of 3%, and vacancy decontrol market-based annual rent growth of 3.35% (based on recent historic average).

Consumer Price Index 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 3.75% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% Al
lowable Rent Increases at Alternative Stabilization Rates 65% of CPI 1.3% 1.6% 2.0% 2.3% 2.4% 2.6% 2.9% 3.3%
70% of CPI 1.4% 1.8% 2.1% 2.5% 2.6% 2.8% 3.2% 3.5%
75% of CPI 1.5% 1.9% 2.3% 2.6% 2.8% 3.0% 3.4% 3.8%
Source: EPS.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 49
Financial Feasibility Summary
The financial feasibility analysis uses multi-year cash flows to compare investment returns of the hypothetical 100-unit apartment complex under a market-rate base case scenario and 3 alternative rent stabilization scenarios.

The metric used to compare the alternative scenarios is the IRR. IRR is a standard measure used in real estate analysis that evaluates the potential project return over time against the investment required, accounting for risk and the time-value of money. Technically, the IRR is the discount rate that equates the present value of the future cash inflows with the initial cash outflow.57 IRRs typically include an initial investment (acquisition), ongoing revenues and expenses, and reversion (sale) in the final year of analysis. For this Study, acquisition of a hypothetical, existing, occupied 100-unit building was assumed, with resale after 10 years of operation.

IRRs can be categorized as either “leveraged” (also referred to as “levered”) or “unleveraged” (also referred to as “unlevered”). A leveraged IRR measures return on equity and compares initial equity investment and debt service, while an unleveraged IRR, sometimes referred to as a project IRR, compares the costs with the anticipated future revenues, without regard to the financing structure.

While most of buildings in question in Salinas are not necessarily changing ownership, the IRR requires some form of initial investment to be compared to the following cash flow, so in the hypothetical scenarios, a cap rate was applied to the net operating income (NOI) to estimate the initial investment (building purchase).

57 Brueggeman & Fisher, Real Estate Finance and Investments, Tenth Edition, 1997, page 321.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 50
Net Operating Income Sensitivity Analysis
Figure 8 illustrates the leveraged and unleveraged IRRs for the hypothetical 100-unit apartment under the market-rate base case scenario and 3 rent stabilization scenarios.

Figure 8. Internal Rate of Return Differential: Market-Rate Base Case vs. Alternative Rent Stabilization Scenarios

7.5%

8.0%

8.5%

8.7%

9.8%

11.0%

12.2%

12.5%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0%
60% of CPI
80% of CPI
100% of CPI
Market Rate
Leveraged IRR Unleveraged IRR
Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 51
Table 4-10 presents the same IRR sensitivity results illustrated above in tabular form, along with a comparison of the average annual growth rate in property value for the hypothetical apartment complex under the different scenarios.

Note that for each rent stabilization scenario, operating expenses are assumed to increase at the same rate as CPI.

Table 4-10. IRR and Property Value Growth Sensitivity Analysis

Detailed cash flow analyses, including assumptions and prototype characteristics, can be found in Appendix B. The rent stabilization allowed increases based on a percentage of CPI options that were chosen based on the average low and high of the rent stabilization requirements in other jurisdictions, as shown in Table 1-1. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 3, rent stabilization impacts renter turnover, with estimates of turnover rates decreasing by about 20 percent.

The rates of return in the sensitivity analysis would be considered low for a new construction project, but for a relatively low-risk investment in an existing, tenanted asset, the returns for scenarios with rent stabilization at 80 percent of CPI and 100 percent of CPI appear adequate and are not too dissimilar to the market-rate base case returns. Projects entailing substantial new development or upgrades to existing product entail speculative market risk, suggesting higher rates of return needed (e.g., 10 to 15 percent leveraged; 15 to 20 percent unleveraged). The hypothetical scenarios included in this Study assume the purchase, operation, and sale of a stabilized and operating asset, where acceptable returns may be much lower in the absence of development risk.

A strong IRR for a lower risk, stable property is estimated to range from around 8 percent to 12 percent.

Property Value
Annual
Item Growth Rate Unleveraged Leveraged
Scenario
Market Rate Building 3.4% 8.7% 12.5%
Re
nt Stabilized Building [1]
60% of CPI 2.3% 7.5% 9.8%
80% of CPI 2.8% 8.0% 11.0%
100% of CPI 3.2% 8.5% 12.2%
Source: EPS.
[1] Includes 20% lower tenant turnover.

Value Comparison
Internal Rate of Return
(IRR)
Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 52
Impact of Operating Expense Growth
Operating expenses have been somewhat volatile in recent years, largely because of increases in utility costs and particularly insurance costs. Increases in operating costs impact the net operating income for multifamily rental units that are unable to pass along the total increased cost to tenants. Correspondingly, the return on investment for landlords can be negatively impacted. Figure 9 summarizes the effect higher operating expense growth has on the potential investment return at different rent stabilization rates (modeled using a 5 percent average growth in costs).

Figure 9. Internal Rate of Return Differential: Impact of 5 Percent Annual Operating Expense Growth

Compared to Figure 8, with operating expenses increasing at the overall rate of inflation, Figure 9 illustrates the lower rates of return resulting from higher operating expenses under different rent stabilization rates. At the more restrictive rent control rates, the rates of investor return are not significantly higher than what can be achieved with far less risk and effort through an investment account.

Under such a scenario, there may be increased incentive for landlords to exit the market. The inclusion of provisions for landlords to petition for rent increases to accommodate additional operating expenses is an important safety valve to prevent undue burden and potential loss of rental units. See Appendix A Table A-15 and Table A-16.

6.4%

7.0%

7.5%

7.9%

7.1%

8.6%

9.9%

10.7%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0%
60% of CPI
80% of CPI
100% of CPI
Market Rate
Leveraged IRR Unleveraged IRR
Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 53
Peer Cities Feasibility Comparison
To compare the scenarios discussed above to the identified peer cities, EPS developed similar investment and operating pro formas, using the adopted rent stabilization rates and actual local market data for hypothetical 100-unit apartment complexes in each city.

The results of the peer city rent stabilization financial feasibility comparison are illustrated in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Peer Cities Hypothetical IRR Comparison

Antioch and Oakland both have rent stabilization rates at 60 percent of CPI.

Both Oxnard (4 percent maximum) and Mountain View (2 to 5 percent) were estimated to be roughly equivalent to CPI, while San Diego, based on AB 1482 allowing 5 percent plus the rate of inflation, was assumed to be the equivalent of 167 percent of CPI.

San Diego’s much higher allowable annual rent increase, combined with relatively high rents and high turnover, results in the highest rate of return of the peer cities. Mountain View’s high acquisition cost and currently low rate of market rent growth results in the lowest rate of return, along with Antioch, which limits rent growth to 60 percent of CPI and has the lowest market rent among the peer cities.
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
San Diego - 167% of CPI (est.)
Oakland - 60% of CPI
Mtn View - 100% of CPI (est.)
Antioch - 60% of CPI
Oxnard - 100% of CPI (est.)
Salinas - 60% of CPI
Salinas - 80% of CPI
Salinas - 100% of CPI
Salinas - Market Rate
Leveraged
Unleveraged
Note: Based on purchase, 10-year operation, and resale of prototypical existing, occupied 100-unit building/ complex using current local market variables. Leveraged analysis assumes 30% equity, 25-year loan at 6%.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 54
Program Implementation Costs to the
City
EPS conducted research to help estimate the costs of implementing and administering rent stabilization programs. EPS reviewed financial information from other city programs and interviewed staff from 3 jurisdictions with varying levels of rent stabilization: Mountain View, Hayward, and Richmond. This research confirmed that implementing and administering these programs requires full-time staff and associated equipment and office space. However, costs can vary significantly based on the level of enforcement and the cost of complementary support services. The City envisions that, if adopted, the Rent Stabilization Program would consolidate with the existing Rental Registry Program, combining the existing costs with the estimated costs to implement the Rent Stabilization Program.

The estimated implementation costs for Salinas depend on the level of enforcement and subsequent staffing. The City estimates that their Rent Stabilization Program will be a complaint-driven enforcement program.

To illustrate this range, EPS estimated staff at a minimum, average, and maximum level of complaint-based enforcement, as shown in Table 4-11.

Please note that these totals exclude the Rental Registry FTEs. The ratio of units per staff is based on a staffing level analysis of rent stabilization jurisdictions.58

58 City of Mountain View Memorandum to the Rental Housing Committee, dated January 25, 2021.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 55
Table 4-11. Estimate Range of Required Staff

Based on data from other cities, the required staff for Salinas would range from the equivalent of 1.1 to 11.4 net new hires (excluding the Rental Registry staff) or a percentage of existing employees’ time. At the lower staffing-level estimates, the primary role of the City employees would be to monitor the Rental Registry and Rent Stabilization Program, educate the community, manage third-party services and software, and manage the petition process. Education occupies the most core part of the program.

Even in a complaint-driven enforced rent stabilization program, staff communicated that education is key to keeping people informed of their rights.

Education includes preparing materials in multiple languages, direct mailing, and speaking at community events. With the minimum level of only 1.1 new staff members, or 3.2 FTEs total, Salinas would likely need to contract third-party services for legal counsel, tenant relocation services, and mediation and dispute resolution. These services along with third-party software are estimated to cost approximately $500,000 annually. See Table 4-12.

In each increasing staffing-level scenario estimated below, there is the potential that fewer services would be contracted out, with City in-house staff completing all tasks in the maximum staffing level scenario. Under maximum staff, Salinas would actively oversee the rental registry, which would involve reviewing every rent increase submitted by landlords. The City of Richmond demonstrates a Item Total
Staffing Level
Minimum 0.13 1.1 1.9 3.0
Av
erage 0.20 1.7 3.0 4.7
Maximum 0.50 4.2 7.2 11.4
Salinas Rental Units 8,330 14,464 22,794
Partially
Covered Units
Complaint-Driven Rest Stabilization Enforcement
Estimated City of Salinas
FTEs Equivalent by Unit Type
(Excluding the Rental Registry)
[1] Based on varying fee levels for complaint-driven rent stabilization jurisdictions across California, sourced from a 2021 Mountain View staff report.

Required
Staff per 1,000
Units [1]
Fully Covered
Units
Source: City of Mountain View Memorandum to the Rental Housing Committee, dated January 25, 2021; EPS.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 56
Table 4-12. Estimated Staffing and Annual Costs Rental Registry and Rent Stabilization Program

staffing level of full enforcement, and the City of Mountain View is approaching this level by adding additional staff. Both cities, however, did not start their programs at full capacity; rather, they began by contracting portions of the program and hiring full-time staff over time. Richmond staff noted that the first 6 months of the program cost about $1.1 million.

The program fee should be designed to recover costs of all budgeted operations:
• Personnel costs of staff, benefits, and overtime.
• Risk management of general and supplemental liability insurance.

Item Assumptions Proposed Minimum Av er age Maximum

CITY COST
Num
ber of Staff
Planning Manager - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
Community Development Analyst - 1.0 0.0 1.2 1.8 4.6
Administrative Analyst - Housing - 1.0 0.0 1.2 1.8 4.6
Admin Aide - 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 2.0
Subtotal - 2.1 1.1 3.0 4.7 11.4

3.0 4.7 11.4
Total Combined with Rental Registry 3.2 5.1 6.7 13.4
Total Staffing Costs Cost per FTE [2]
Planning Manager $235,000 $11,750 $35, 250 $26,304 $32,708 $65,611 Community Development Analyst $154,200 $154,200 $154,200 $345,197 $429,242 $861,038 Administrative Analyst - Housing $128,800 $128,800 $128,800 $288,336 $358,537 $719,207 Admin Aide $108,700 $0 $108,700 $54,350 $108,700 $217,400 Subtotal Staffing Costs - $294,750 $426,950 $714,187 $929,187 $1,863,255 Other Costs
Software & Systems Supporters - $10,000 $200, 000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Tenant/Landlord Services and Resources [4] - $100,000 $300,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 Subtotal Other Costs - $110,000 $500,000 $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 Total Cost $404,750 $926,950 $1,214,187 $1,379,187 $2,263,255 Source: City of Salinas; EPS.
[2] Staff costs are based on the data received from the Community Development department October 19, 2024. [3] Total Rent Stabilization Program costs include the total for the Rental Registry Program. [4] Third party resource requirements are estimated to decrease with increased levels of City staff. ---------------------------------------- FTEs ---------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- Cost by Staff Level [3]-------------------------------------- [1] See Table 4-11
---------------------------- Other Costs by Staff Level [3] --------------------------------- Rental Registry + Rent Stabilization Program Level of
Enforcement Range [1]
Existing
Rental
Regi
stry
Program
Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 58
burdened cost of staff shown includes salaries, taxes, and benefits. Please note that the fee for partially covered units should be less than the fully covered unit fee. Other cities have fees ranging from about $60 for all units in San Francisco up to $344 per fully covered unit and $212 for partially covered units in Berkeley, as shown in Appendix A Table A-13.
2025 Updated Table 4-13. Rental Registry and Rent Stabilization Program Estimated Annual Cost 2025 Estimate and 2026 Projection at 45 Percent Compliance

For the Rental Registry Program fee, the City currently charges a fee based on the number of units within a range per parcel. The initial goal was to not overcharge owners of smaller buildings; however, this fee structure actually provides a monetary discount for larger developments and creates a financial loss to the City. As shown in Table 4-14, the total estimated revenue based on the City’s current Rental Registry fee structure is about $207,000, compared to if the City charged a fee on a per-unit basis. For illustrative purposes, EPS used the estimated average cost of the proposed staffing and fee revenue at 100 percent compliance to estimate the total revenue, which would create a cost recovery of about $2.1 million.

Item 45% Amount
Residential Units
Fully Covered Units (Qualify for Rent Stabilization) 8,330 Units 8,834 - - 8,834 Partially Covered Units (Qualify for Just Cause Protections) 14,464 Units 3,965 - - 3,965 12,799 - - 12,799
Fee Amount based on Level of Staff and Third Party
Services + Software
Rent Stabilization Program + Rent Program $170 per unit/per year $1,501,780 $112 34.1% $989,408 Rent Program $45 per unit/per year $178,425 $29 35.6% $114,985 Late Fees (2% of Revenue) - 2% $37,210 - - $24,458
Adjustments and Refunds - ($2,068) - - $0
Total Annual Revenue - $1,715,347 - - $1,128,851
Estimated Costs [2]
Staffing Costs - - - - $351,252
Software & Systems Supporters - - - - $131,000
Tenant/Landlord Services and Resources - - - - $300,515 Indirect Costs / Overhead - - - - $117,415
Subtotal - $720,750 - - $900,182
Loan Repayment to General Fund - $205,203 - - $0
Grant Funding - ($122,321) - - $0
Total Annual Estimated Costs - $803,632 - - $900,182
Program Surplus/Deficit - $911,715 - - $228,669
Contingency % - NA - - 25.4%
Source: City of Salinas; EPS.
[1] Actual compliance percentage, revenues, and costs for 2025 per the City of Salinas. [2] Estimated costs for 2026 per the City of Salinas.

Assumption
2025 Actual
Compliance,
Revenues, and
Costs [1]
2026 Estimated Compliance
45%
Original Updated
Fee
Proportional
Reduction
Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 59
Table 4-14. Current Rental Registry Fee Comparison

Item Buildings Units % Total

Estimated per Unit Fee [3] $45 $170
Number of Units [4] 14,464 8,330
Number of Units per Parcel
1 8,691 8,691 38.1% $20 $173,820 $248,166 $539,955 $788,121 $614,301 2-4 11 3,192 14.0% $35 $385 $91,145 $198,313 $289,458 $289,073 5-9 168 1,455 6.4% $60 $10,080 $41,553 $90,410 $131,963 $121,883 10-24 118 2,151 9.4% $75 $8,850 $61,410 $133,614 $195,024 $186,174 25-49 30 1,344 5.9% $120 $3,600 $38,390 $83,529 $121,919 $118,319 50-99 13 1,132 5.0% $225 $2,925 $32,331 $70,344 $102,675 $99,750 100+ 20 4,829 21.2% $350 $7,000 $137,876 $299,989 $437,865 $430,865 Total 9,051 22,794 100.0% - $206,660 $650,868 $1,416,147 $2,067,025 $1,860,354 Source: ACS; CoStar; City of Salinas; EPS.
[1] Estimated based on data from ACS and CoStar.
[3] The annual fee for partially covered units should be less than that for fully covered units. The fee shown is based on the City's proposed FTEs. [4] See Table 4-11.

Difference
between
Current
Estimate
Revenue and
Updated Fee
Current Rental Registry Fee
Partially Covered
Units
Fully Covered
Units
[2] Registration fees for the rental registry program per the Residential Registry Community Development Council Staff Report dated April 4, 2023.

Estimated Revenue of a Rental Registry + Rent
Stabilization Combined Fee on a Per Unit Basis
based on the Proposed FTEs at 100%
Compliance [3]Estimated Salinas Rental
Residential [1]
Annual
Registration
Fee [2]
Estimated
Total
Revenue
Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 60
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
Rent regulations are increasingly prevalent in California. In cities like Salinas, where apartments account for about 36 percent of the housing stock, the policy could have a range of potential impacts. As discussed previously, current State law limits the impact of rent stabilization by exempting single-family units, condominiums, and properties built after 1995 and allowing for vacancy decontrol (the ability to raise rent back to market rate after a tenant leaves).

For applicable units (19 percent of the City’s housing), the proposed Ordinance is likely to stabilize rents and decrease displacement risk, which is an important equity concern in the City. Thus, existing City renters would be the direct beneficiaries of the Ordinance, accruing long-term financial benefits and reduced risk of eviction. This benefit would come at a cost to existing Salinas landlords who could experience reduced rental income and limitations on removing unwanted tenants. However, the effects on income appear to be relatively modest, particularly as the Ordinance has policies to help protect hardships by allowing a landlord to petition for rent increase beyond the allowed rent-stabilized increase to obtain a fair and reasonable return, as well as petition to pass through to the tenant specific capital improvements. Conversely there is a policy that allows a tenant to petition for a rent reduction if they believe that the landlord has demanded, accepted, or retained any rent in excess of the rent permitted.

However, despite the clear and direct redistribution effects of the proposed Ordinance, the broader economic implications are likely to be modest absent the repeal of Costa-Hawkins, which would expand the incidence of rent control beyond the above-referenced 19 percent of the City’s housing.

While 19 percent of the City’s housing is not immaterial, the renter protections included in the Ordinance are likely to have both positive and negative impacts on the local economy and the City’s fiscal health. The positive impacts include reduced displacement, as well as increased economic stability and disposable income for renters. The negative impacts may include reduced labor mobility and housing availability for new residents, as rent stabilization is shown to decrease turnover by about 20 percent, and with vacancy in the City already extremely tight, this exacerbates the limited housing options for new residents and the ability for existing residents to move, as discussed in Chapter 3.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 61
Rent stabilization is part of a toolkit that, along with other policies and incentives, can help alleviate some housing cost pressures. Taken in combination with other policies that encourage additional supply, it can be part of a multi-pronged effort to improve the outlook for residents struggling to afford housing.

Recommendations
Based on the findings from the literature review and economic impacts analysis, EPS recommends the City consider adopting a rent stabilization ordinance limiting the maximum increase of rent to the lesser of 2.5 percent or 65 percent of the CPI-U West or 2.75 percent or 75 percent of the CPI-U West.

The Rent Stabilization Ordinance should include strong tenant protections, as well as clear guidance on the types of units that would qualify in the event Costa-Hawkins is repealed. Strong tenant protections include Just-Cause eviction protections, as well as No-Fault eviction protections such as requiring landlords to pay fair relocation costs. See Appendix A Table A-1 for no-fault eviction in the California cities that have rent stabilization ordinances. An additional protection the City could consider is setting a cap on the number of units that can convert to condominiums within a year and providing current tenants the right of first refusal to purchase condominium conversions.

The City should consider merging the Rent Stabilization Fee into the Rental Registry Fee and charge this fee on a per-unit basis. The fee amount should differ based on unit type: fully covered units (rental registry, tenant protections, and rent stabilization) should be higher than partially covered units (rental registry and tenant protections). The fee is to help the City recover the costs to run the program, including staffing, third-party services and software, community education, and program enforcement and should provide financial neutrality. Based on data from other cities, the additional staffing needed to establish, run, and maintain the Rent Stabilization Ordinance ranges from the equivalent of 1.1 to 11.4 net new hires (excluding the rental registry staff) or a percentage of existing employees’ time. With the minimum level of only 1.1 new staff members, or 3.2 FTEs total, Salinas would likely need to contract third-party services for legal counsel, tenant relocation services, and mediation and dispute resolution. As staffing increases beyond the 3.2 FTEs, the amount of third-party source contracts will decrease.

Proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance Analysis
November 2024
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 62
The City should consider including language in the Ordinance establishing periodic review elements such as the rent increase caps, the number of petitions, staffing levels, fee amounts, etc., to ensure the program operates effectively for property owners, tenants, and the City.

In addition, the City should take careful consideration to explicitly include any elements they would like to retain from Costa-Hawkins, such as exempting single- family homes, exempting new development, and providing vacancy decontrol.

If these are not included in the City’s Ordinance, and the statewide ballot initiative set for the November 2024 ballot to repeal Costa-Hawkins passes, the local Ordinance would apply to all rental housing—including single-family units—and rents would not reset to market for new tenants.

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Demographic and Socioeconomic
Analysis Support Tables
Appendix B: Financial Analysis Support Tables

APPENDIX A:

Demographic and Socioeconomic
Analysis Support Tables

Table A-1 Units in Structure: City of Salinas .................................. A-1 Table A-2 Vacant Housing Units by Usage Category ........................ A-2 Table A-3 Total Vacancy Rate ...................................................... A-3 Table A-4 Tenure by Units In Structure ........................................ A-4 Table A-5 Tenure by Age of Structure: City of Salinas ..................... A-5 Table A-6 Residential Inventory Characteristics:

City of Salinas ............................................................ A-6 Table A-7 Subsidized Affordable Housing Units .............................. A-7 Table A-8 Multifamily Housing Market Summary ............................ A-8 Table A-9 Household Income by Range......................................... A-9 Table A-10 Household Size and Tenure ........................................ A-10 Table A-11 Year Householder Moved into Unit ............................... A-11 Table A-12 Units Permitted by Year ............................................. A-12 Table A-13 Comparable Rent Stabilization Programs
Staffing and Fees ...................................................... A-13 Table A-14 Inflation Method Comparison ...................................... A-14 Table A-15 Household Operations and Furnishings
Price Index Change ................................................... A-15 Table A-16 Median Operating Expenses by Property Type ............... A-16

Table A-1
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Units in Structure: City of Salinas (2022)
Item Units % of Total
Type of Unit
Single Detached Units 25,252 56.7%
Single Attached Units 2,517 5.7%
2-4 Units 3,602 8.1%
5+ Units 11,019 24.8%
Mobile Homes 2,113 4.7%
Total Housing Units 44,503 100.0%
Source: ACS; EPS.
2022
Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-2
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Vacant Housing Units by Usage Category (2022)
Item Units % of Total Units % of Total
Vacant Housing Units
For Rent 265 18.5% 1,589 12.4%
Unoccupied Rentals 73 5.1% 302 2.4%
For-Sale 162 11.3% 565 4.4%
Unoccupied Sold Units 165 11.5% 501 3.9%
Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional
Use
123 8.6% 6,290 49.3%
For Migrant Workers - - 95 0.7%
Other 642 44.9% 3,428 26.8%
Total Vacant 1,430 100.0% 12,770 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Tables B25004; EPS.

Monterey County
2022 VACANT HOUSING UNITS
City of Salinas
Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-3
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Total Vacancy Rate (2010-2023)
Item City of Salinas Monterey County
Year
2010 5.3% 9.4%
2011 5.3% 9.6%
2012 5.3% 9.6%
2013 5.5% 9.9%
2014 5.5% 10.0%
2015 5.5% 10.0%
2016 5.6% 10.3%
2017 5.6% 10.3%
2018 5.6% 10.5%
2019 5.7% 10.6%
2020 2.8% 8.2%
2021 2.9% 8.2%
2022 2.9% 8.1%
2023 2.9% 8.1%
Source: California Department of Finance E-5; EPS.

Total Residential Vacancy Rate
Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-4
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Tenure by Units In Structure (2012-2022)
Item
Owner-
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Share Renter
Occupied
% of Unit
Type
Owner-
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Share Renter
Occupied
% of Unit
Type Total % Total %
Unit Type
Detached Single-Family 15,409 6,834 30.7% 55.2% 17,392 7,234 29.4% 57.2% 1,983 12.9% 400 5.9% Attached Single-Family 1,140 1,456 56.1% 6.4% 1,031 1,457 58.6% 5.8% (109) (9.6%) 1 0.1% Duplex 38 815 95.5% 2.1% - 891 100.0% 2.1% (38) (100.0%) 76 9.3% 3 to 4 unit building 116 2,654 95.8% 6.9% 255 2,301 90.0% 5.9% 139 119.8% (353) (13.3%) 5 + unit building 200 10,368 98.1% 26.2% 124 10,288 98.8% 24.2% (76) (38.0%) (80) (0.8%) Other 752 510 40.4% 3.1% 1,477 623 29.7% 4.9% 725 96.4% 113 22.2% Total 17,655 22,637 56.2% 100.0% 20,279 22,794 52.9% 100.0% 2,624 14.9% 157 0.7% Source: American Community Survey 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates, Table B25032; EPS.

Owner-Occupied
2021-2022 Change
Renter Occupied2012 2022
City of Salinas
Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-5
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Tenure by Age of Structure: City of Salinas (2022)
Item Total % Total % Total % Total %
Year
Built 2020 or later 22 0.1% 13 0.1% 35 0.1% 35 0.1%
Built 2010 to 2019 216 1.1% 621 2.7% 837 1.9% 845 1.9%
Built 2000 to 2009 2,499 12.3% 1,921 8.4% 4,420 10.3% 4,645 10.4% Built 1990 to 1999 3,344 16.5% 3,753 16.5% 7,097 16.5% 7,258 16.3% Est. of units built between 1990 and 1994 751 3.7% 843 3.7% 1,593 3.7% 3,187 7.2% Built 1980 to 1989 2,147 10.6% 3,803 16.7% 5,950 13.8% 6,221 14.0% Built 1970 to 1979 3,384 16.7% 4,636 20.3% 8,020 18.6% 8,213 18.5% Built 1960 to 1969 3,005 14.8% 2,860 12.5% 5,865 13.6% 6,074 13.6% Built 1950 to 1959 2,607 12.9% 2,387 10.5% 4,994 11.6% 5,231 11.8% Built 1940 to 1949 1,553 7.7% 1,657 7.3% 3,210 7.5% 3,257 7.3% Built 1939 or earlier 1,502 7.4% 1,143 5.0% 2,645 6.1% 2,724 6.1% Total 20,279 100.0% 22,794 100.0% 43,073 100.0% 44,503 100.0% Built Before 1995 14,949 73.7% 17,329 76.0% 32,277 74.9% 34,907 78.4% Built 1995 or Later 5,330 26.3% 5,465 24.0% 10,796 25.1% 9,596 21.6% Source: American Community Survey 2018-2022 5- Year Estimates, Table B25034; EPS.

CITY OF SALINAS AGE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
Tenure of Occupied Housing Units
Total Housing Units
[1] ACS data only provides data within 10-year timeframes; the number of units estimated to be built between 1990 and 1994 is based on the average percentage of permits pulled between those years within the 1990 to 1999 time period. See Table A-12.

Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-6
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Residential Inventory Characteristics: City of Salinas (2022) Item Source/Table Formula Total
Housing Inventory
Total Single Family Residential (SFR) Detached Table A-1 A 25,252 56.7% 28.6% Total Multifamily (MFR) and Other Table A-1 B 19,251 43.3% 82.6% Total Units 44,503 100.0% 52.0%
Total Occupied Units
Owner-Occupied SFR Table A-4 C 17,392 39.1% -
Owner-Occupied MFR Table A-4 D 2,887 6.5% -
Renter-Occupied SFR Table A-4 E 7,234 16.3% 31.3%
Renter-Occupied MFR Table A-4 F 15,560 35.0% 67.3%
Total Occupied Units G = C + D + E + F 43,073 96.8% -
Vacant Units
Owner/For-Sale Table A-2 H 327 0.7% -
Rental/For Rent Table A-2 I 338 0.8% 1.5%
Seasonal, Rec. Use, Migrant Workers, Other Table A-2 J 765 1.7% - Total Vacant Units K = H + I + J 1,430 3.2% -
Total Rental Unit Inventory L = E + F + I 23,132 52.0% 100.0% Units Exempt from Rent Stabilization
Built 1995 or Later
Total Owner-Occupied M = C + D + H 20,606 46.3% -
Renter-Occupied Built 1995 or Later Table A-5 N 5,465 12.3% 23.6% Multifamily Built 1995 or Later [1] CoStar O 2,022 4.5% 8.7% SFR Renter-Occupied E 7,234 16.3% 31.3%
Seasonal, Rec. Use, Migrant Workers, Other [2] J 765 1.7% - Built 1995 or Later Table A-5 P 24% - -
Rental/For Rent [3] Q = I * P 81 0.2% 0.4%
Total Exempt Units R = M + N + O + E + J + Q 36,173 81.3% 54.9% Units Qualifying for Rent Stabilization
Renter-Occupied Built Prior to 1995 Table A-5 S 17,329 38.9% 74.9% Built Prior to 1995 Table A-5 T 76% - -
Rental/For Rent [3] U = I * T 257 0.6% 1.1%
Less Renter-Occupied SFR E (7,234) (16.3%) (31.3%)
Less Multifamily Built 1995 or Later O (2,022) (4.5%) (8.7%) Total Units Qualifying for Rent Stabilization V = S + U - E - O 8,330 18.7% 36.0% Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S2502; EPS. [1] Per CoStar.
[2] To remain conservative, EPS assumes seasonal, recreational, occasional use, migrant worker housing, and other are exempt from rent stabilization. [3] To estimate the year built for vacant rentals, EPS applied the percentage breakdown for renter-occupied units from Table A-5.

City of Salinas
% of Total
Housing
% that is Rental
Housing
Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-7
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Subsidized Affordable Housing Units (April 2024)
Item Address Type Year Built
Total
Units Studio
One-
Bedroom
Two-
Bedrooms
Three-
Bedrooms
Four Bed-
Rooms
Apartment Units
Moon Gate Plaza 21 Soledad Street Apartments 2017 90 81 4 5 - - Haciendas 3 40, 50, 60 East Rossi Street Apartments 2016 50 - 19 16 15 - Gabilan Plaza 736 Williams Rd. Apartments 2013 200 - 36 74 90 - Harden Ranch Apts 1907 Dartmouth Way Apartments 2013 100 - 16 20 48 16 Haciendas Apartments II 275 Calle Cebu Apartments 2012 46 - 6 20 17 3 One Haciendas 233 Calle Cebu Apartments 2011 52 - 9 27 14 3 Salinas Gateway Apts 25 Lincoln Ave Apartments 2011 52 25 21 6 - - Tresor Apts 1041 Buckhorn Dr Apartments 2009 81 - - 24 41 16 La Gloria Senior Apts 539 E Market St Apartments 2009 23 - 23 - - - Sherwood Village 808 N Main St Apartments 2006 124 - 102 22 - - Jardines Del Monte Apartments 1259 Del Monte Ave Apartments 2004 28 - - - - - Salinas Pointe Apts 1260 John St Apartments 2003 219 3 91 61 8 - Salinas Bay Apts 920 Larkin St Apartments 2002 95 - - 25 60 10 Plaza Grande 50 E Market St Apartments 2002 92 91 1 - - - Montecito at Williams Ranch 1598 Mesquite Dr Apartments 2000 132 - 107 25 - - Steinbeck Commons Apts 10 Lincoln Ave Apartments 2000 100 - 99 - - - Nantucket Bay Apts 950 Nantucket Blvd Apartments 1999 160 - - 70 70 20 Plaza Club Apts 100 Harden Pkwy Apartments 1997 208 - 7 28 8 - Shadowbrook Apartments 1115-1118 Alamo Way Apartments 1988 88 - 20 38 30 - Vista De La Terraza 165-177 Carr Ave Apartments 1984 40 - - 15 10 15 Las Casas de Madera 510 E Market St Apartments 1982 75 - - 22 28 25 Lakeview 58 Natividad Rd Apartments 1982 50 - - 28 9 13 Parkside Manor 1112-1115 Parkside St Apartments 1971 48 - - - - - Tynan Village 323 Front St Apartments - 172 - 65 60 35 12 Santanna Apartments 1235 Garner Ave Apartments - 160 - - - - - Tesoros del Campos 42 La Posada Dr Apartments - 57 - - 8 43 6 Del Monte Plaza 1415 Del Monte Ave Apartments - 44 - - - - - Ocean View Apartments 44 Natividad Rd Apartments - 40 - 8 19 13 - Mariposa Apartments 300 Casentini St Apartments - 21 - - - - - - 775 Elkington Ave Apartments - 7 - - - - -
Subtotal Multifamily Units 2,654
Other Affordable
East Salinas Family Rad Scattered Sites Townhomes 2016 202 - 35 86 63 18 Los Abuelitos Senior Apts 528 E Market St Senior 2004 25 - 25 - - - Mountain View Townhomes 1580 Falcon Dr Townhomes 2000 68 - - 20 40 8 Addington Way Homes 288 Addington Ln Special Needs 1999 2 - - - 2 - Roosevelt Street Townhomes II 504 Roosevelt St Townhomes 1998 22 - - - 22 - Regency Court Senior 472 Regency Cir Senior 1997 119 - 96 24 - - Gabilan Hills Townhomes 1051-1057 Paseo Grande Townhomes 1995 100 - - 32 34 34 Roosevelt Townhomes 522 Roosevelt St Townhomes 1995 22 - - - - - Plaza Hotel 30 E Market St SRO 1992 27 - - - - - Subtotal Other Units 587
Total 3,241 200 626 594 526 139
Source: Costar; HUD National Low Income Housing Tax Credit 1987-2022 Data; EPS.

City of Salinas
[1] Some properties do not include the number of rooms as Costar and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) do not provide this information.

The absence of data may occur due to various reasons, such as privacy policies, incomplete records, or the nature of the reporting systems of these organizations.

Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-8
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Multifamily Housing Market Summary (2012-2024)
Item
Year
2000 $920 - 2.4%
2001 $963 4.7% 3.3%
2002 $955 (0.8%) 4.0%
2003 $947 (0.8%) 4.3%
2004 $948 0.1% 4.3%
2005 $979 3.3% 4.0%
2006 $1,015 3.7% 3.9%
2007 $1,046 3.1% 3.4%
2008 $1,068 2.1% 3.7%
2009 $1,027 (3.8%) 4.1%
2010 $1,041 1.4% 4.1%
2011 $1,050 0.9% 4.5%
2012 $1,070 1.9% 4.1%
2013 $1,099 2.7% 3.7%
2014 $1,143 4.0% 3.1%
2015 $1,274 11.5% 2.8%
2016 $1,375 7.9% 3.0%
2017 $1,480 7.6% 2.4%
2018 $1,554 5.0% 2.1%
2019 $1,592 2.4% 2.7%
2020 $1,702 6.9% 2.4%
2021 $1,920 12.8% 2.4%
2022 $1,859 (3.2%) 2.8%
2023 $1,978 6.4% 2.8%
2024 $1,994 0.8% 2.7%
Average/
Total Change $1,280 3.4% 3.3%
Source: CoStar; EPS.
[1] This data reflects market rate multifamily apartment units built before 1995 in the City of Salinas.

City of Salinas Multifamily Housing [1]
Monthly Effective
Rent
% Change, Rent
Asked Vacancy Rate
Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-9
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Household Income by Range (2012 & 2022)
Item 2012 [1] % 2022 % % Change 2012 [1] % 2022 % % Change Income Range
<$15,000 3,981 9.9% 2,550 5.9% (35.9%) 10,761 8.6% 6,915 5.3% (35.7%) $15,000 - $24,999 4,992 12.4% 2,718 6.3% (45.6%) 12,012 9.6% 6,667 5.1% (44.5%) $25,000 - $34,999 4,831 12.0% 2,589 6.0% (46.4%) 12,012 9.6% 8,369 6.4% (30.3%) $35,000 - $49,999 6,080 15.1% 4,355 10.1% (28.4%) 16,766 13.4% 12,560 9.6% (25.1%) $50,000 - $74,999 7,974 19.8% 7,111 16.5% (10.8%) 24,524 19.6% 19,240 14.7% (21.5%) $75,000 - $99,999 4,871 12.1% 6,638 15.4% 36.3% 15,891 12.7% 18,454 14.1% 16.1% $100,000 - $149,999 5,153 12.8% 8,963 20.8% 73.9% 19,394 15.5% 25,658 19.6% 32.3% $150,000 - $199,999 1,527 3.8% 3,924 9.1% 157.0% 6,882 5.5% 13,739 10.5% 99.6% $200,000+ 882 2.2% 4,225 9.8% 378.9% 6,882 5.5% 19,371 14.8% 181.5% Total 40,292 100.0% 43,073 100.0% 6.9% 125,123 100.0% 130,973 100.0% 4.7% Median Household Income in 2022$ $68,364 $84,250 23.2% $81,279 $91,043 12.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2012 & 2022, Table S1901; EPS. [1] The median household incomes reported by ACS are inflation-adjusted to constant dollars.

City of Salinas Monterey County
Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-10
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Household Size and Tenure (2012 and 2022)
Item Total % Total %
Renter-Occupied Households
1-person 3,973 17.6% 3,821 16.8% (3.83%)
2-person 3,721 16.4% 3,773 16.6% 1.40%
3-person 3,750 16.6% 3,093 13.6% (17.52%)
4+ -person 11,193 49.4% 12,107 53.1% 8.17%
Total 22,637 100.0% 22,794 100.0% 0.69%
Owner-Occupied
1-person 2,648 15.0% 3,082 15.2% 16.39%
2-person 4,645 26.3% 5,112 25.2% 10.05%
3-person 3,011 17.1% 3,211 15.8% 6.64%
4+ -person 7,351 41.6% 8,874 43.8% 20.72%
Total 17,655 100.0% 20,279 100.0% 14.86%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B25009; EPS. 2012 2022 Change
(2012-2022)
City of Salinas
Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-11
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Year Householder Moved into Unit
Item Min Max Avg. Total % Total %
Year Householder Moved Into Unit
Moved in 2021 or later 0 - 1 0.5 5,141 20.4% 472 2.3% Moved in 2018 to 2020 2 - 4 3 7,406 29.3% 2,254 11.0% Moved in 2010 to 2017 5 - 12 8.5 7,775 30.8% 6,036 29.3% Moved in 2000 to 2009 13 - 22 17.5 3,641 14.4% 5,867 28.5% Moved in 1990 to 1999 23 - 32 27.5 918 3.6% 3,211 15.6% Moved in 1989 or earlier 33 + 33 358 1.4% 2,736 13.3% Total 25,239 100.0% 20,576 100.0%
Weighted Average Years
Lived in Unit 7.6 16.5
Source: ACS 2022 5-Year estimates Table B25038; EPS.

Renter-Occupied
City of Salinas Households
Owner-Occupied
Years Lived
in Unit
Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-12
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Units Permitted by Year (2000-2022)
Item 1-Unit 2-Unit
3- and 4-
Unit 5-Unit + Total
Year
1990 194 8 3 - 205
1991 160 8 3 - 171
1992 197 10 - 16 223
1993 275 - 7 27 309
1994 585 10 46 6 647
1995 431 4 9 98 542
1996 413 2 11 253 679
1997 628 - - 207 835
1998 500 - - - 500
1999 809 22 - 531 1,362
2000 579 4 18 50 651
2001 268 - - 160 428
2002 442 14 9 92 557
2003 257 - 14 273 544
2004 231 - 6 25 262
2005 224 - - 21 245
2006 119 - - - 119
2007 72 2 - 170 244
2008 24 2 8 58 92
2009 19 - - 18 37
2010 35 - 16 88 139
2011 7 - 8 10 25
2012 11 2 - - 13
2013 3 2 3 51 59
2014 30 - - 36 66
2015 46 2 - 46 94
2016 2 2 - 48 52
2017 26 - - - 26
2018 57 - - 106 163
2019 80 4 - 12 96
2020 96 - - 109 205
2021 64 4 - 130 198
2022 59 2 - - 61
Total 1990-2022 6,943 104 161 2,641 9,849
Average per Year (1990-2022) 217 3 5 83 308
Total 1995-2022 5,532 68 102 2,592 8,294
Average per Year (1995-2022) 205 3 4 96 307
City of Salinas
Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development State of the Cities Database; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-13
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Comparable Rent Stabilization Programs Staffing and Fees Item

JURISDICTION
Actively Enforced Rent Programs
East Palo Alto 2,500 2 1,250 0.80 $234 NA 50%
Berkeley 20,000 22 909 1.10 $344 $212 50%
Oakland 65,000 11 5,909 0.17 $101 NA 50%
Richmond 18,000 13 1,385 0.72 $238 $135 0%
Santa Monica 28,000 26 1,077 0.93 $228 NA 50%
Total/Weighted Avg. 133,500 74 3,449 0.83 $185 - -
Complaint Driven Rent Programs
Mountain View 15,000 5 3,000 0.33 $120 NA NA
West Hollywood 17,000 9 2,000 0.50 $144 $144 50% San Jose 39,000 16 2,438 0.41 $106 $34 NA
San Francisco 173,000 31 5,581 0.18 $59 $59 50% Los Angeles 600,000 80 7,500 0.13 $39 NA 50%
Total/Weighted Avg. 844,000 141 6,682 0.20 $50 - -
Source: City of Mountain View Memorandum to the Rental Housing Committee, dated January 25, 2021; City Web Sites; EPS.

Portion of the Fee
Passed Through
to Tenants
Number of
Qualifying
Units
Staff per
1,000
Units
Number
of Units
per Staff
Staffing
FTEs
Fully Covered
Unit
Partially
Covered Unit
Current Rental Housing
Fees per Fully Covered Unit
Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-14
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Inflation Method Comparison
Year Total 60% CPI 80% CPI Total Change
2014 240.215 226.976
2015 243.015 0.70% 0.93% 226.12 -0.38%
2016 247.705 1.16% 1.54% 226.814 0.31%
2017 254.738 1.70% 2.27% 230.467 1.61%
2018 263.263 2.01% 2.68% 236.871 2.78%
2019 270.350 1.62% 2.15% 240.92 1.71%
2020 275.057 1.04% 1.39% 243.674 1.14%
2021 287.494 2.71% 3.62% 257.523 5.68%
2022 310.509 4.80% 6.40% 280.63 8.97%
2023 323.834 2.57% 3.43% 288.792 2.91%
2024 [2] 331.933 1.50% 2.00% 294.262 1.89%
Total Change (2014-2024) 22.91% 30.55% 29.64%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; and EPS.
[1] Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), West Region. [2] Values for 2024 indicate calendar year average through June.

CPI [1]
Annual Change CPI - Less Shelter
Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-15
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Household Operations and Furnishings Price Index Change Year HIOC COICOP 05 CPI
2014 -1.38% -1.45% -0.86%
2015 -0.43% -0.74% 0.48%
2016 -0.86% -1.16% -0.18%
2017 -0.77% -0.90% -0.53%
2018 0.72% 0.55% 1.25%
2019 1.75% 1.75% 2.30%
2020 1.50% 1.75% 3.08%
2021 4.49% 4.41% 3.29%
2022 9.03% 9.16% 8.82%
2023 2.93% 2.63% 2.86%
Total Change (2014-2023) 19.47% 18.38% 23.16%
CAGR (2014-2023) 1.63% 1.55% 1.98%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; and EPS.
[1] Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), West Region. [2] Values for 2024 indicate calendar year average through June.

Index Change from Previous Year
Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx Table A-16
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Median Operating Expenses by Property Type (2011-2022)
Item 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Mid Rise
Administration $668 $647 $643 $602 $627 $720 $688 $813 $836 $785 $855 $887 Repairs and Maintenance $1,067 $1,042 $1,031 $1,135 $1,106 $1,259 $1,263 $1,349 $1,480 $1,481 $1,741 $1,829 Utilities $833 $782 $838 $923 $871 $919 $928 $927 $1,022 $1,103 $1,020 $1,202 Payroll $1,298 $1,347 $1,360 $1,380 $1,299 $1,471 $1,429 $1,455 $1,553 $1,658 $1,655 $1,837 Management Fee $485 $460 $491 $497 $422 $535 $523 $629 $708 $764 $778 $695 Property Insurance $288 $298 $306 $286 $262 $239 $224 $332 $324 $421 $560 $739 Total Mid Rise [1] $4,639 $4,576 $4,669 $4,823 $4,587 $5,143 $5,055 $5,505 $5,923 $6,212 $6,609 $7,189 Low Rise
Administration $557 $620 $594 $580 $631 $612 $588 $711 $744 $755 $741 $852 Repairs and Maintenance $839 $838 $917 $964 $974 $1,037 $1,075 $1,103 $1,236 $1,202 $1,308 $1,650 Utilities $694 $725 $775 $811 $793 $804 $793 $844 $876 $946 $966 $1,043 Payroll $1,075 $1,101 $1,132 $1,172 $1,239 $1,228 $1,274 $1,336 $1,423 $1,482 $1,489 $1,639 Management Fee $392 $406 $421 $431 $420 $436 $443 $519 $589 $673 $707 $672 Property Insurance $229 $250 $265 $275 $272 $281 $282 $311 $346 $395 $515 $528 Total Low Rise [1] $3,786 $3,940 $4,104 $4,233 $4,329 $4,398 $4,455 $4,824 $5,214 $5,453 $5,726 $6,384 Single-family. Duplex and Townhomes
Administration $505 $525 $575 $552 $595 $659 $657 $681 $769 $753 $737 $787 Repairs and Maintenance $840 $908 $961 $1,000 $1,022 $1,119 $1,145 $1,131 $1,243 $1,253 $1,375 $1,554 Utiiities $669 $694 $749 $758 $800 $780 $750 $891 $912 $995 $872 $972 Payroll $1,006 $1,074 $1,116 $1,091 $1,280 $1,203 $1,376 $1,416 $1,473 $1,625 $1,461 $1,605 Management Fee $364 $335 $330 $328 $454 $438 $481 $679 $729 $762 $705 $683 Property Insurance $258 $293 $329 $309 $262 $258 $243 $265 $348 $318 $497 $542 Total Single-family. Duplex and Townhomes [1] $3,642 $3,829 $4,060 $4,038 $4,413 $4,457 $4,652 $5,063 $5,474 $5,706 $5,647 $6,143 Average All
Administration $577 $597 $604 $578 $618 $664 $644 $735 $783 $764 $778 $842 Repairs and Maintenance $915 $929 $970 $1,033 $1,034 $1,138 $1,161 $1,194 $1,320 $1,312 $1,475 $1,678 Utiiities $732 $734 $787 $831 $821 $834 $824 $887 $937 $1,015 $953 $1,072 Payroll $1,126 $1,174 $1,203 $1,214 $1,273 $1,301 $1,360 $1,402 $1,483 $1,588 $1,535 $1,694 Management Fee $414 $400 $414 $419 $432 $470 $482 $609 $675 $733 $730 $683 Property Insurance $258 $280 $300 $290 $265 $259 $250 $303 $339 $378 $524 $603 Total Average All $4,022 $4,115 $4,278 $4,365 $4,443 $4,666 $4,721 $5,131 $5,537 $5,790 $5,994 $6,572 Year-Over-Year Change (Average All Types)
Administration 3.58% 1.12% (4.30%) 6.86% 7.45% (2.91%) 14.07% 6.53% (2.38%) 1.74% 8.27% Repairs and Maintenance 1.53% 4.34% 6.53% 0.10% 10.09% 1.99% 2.87% 10.49% (0.58%) 12.40% 13.77% Utiiities 0.23% 7.31% 5.50% (1.12%) 1.58% (1.28%) 7.73% 5.56% 8.33% (6.11%) 12.56% Payroll 4.23% 2.44% 0.97% 4.80% 2.20% 4.54% 3.14% 5.75% 7.10% (3.36%) 10.34% Management Fee (3.22%) 3.41% 1.13% 3.18% 8.72% 2.70% 26.26% 10.89% 8.54% (0.41%) (6.39%) Property Insurance 8.52% 7.02% (3.33%) (8.51%) (2.26%) (3.73%) 21.23% 12.11% 11.39% 38.62% 15.08% Total Year Over Year Change 2.30% 3.95% 2.03% 1.79% 5.02% 1.17% 8.69% 7.92% 4.58% 3.52% 9.64% Compound Annual Growth Rate (2014-2020)
Administration 3.50%
Repairs and Maintenance 5.66%
Utiiities 3.53%
Payroll 3.78%
Management Fee 4.67%
Property Insurance 8.01%
Total 4.56%
Source: Novogradac, 2023. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Income and Operating Expenses Report.

Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Rent_Stabilization_08-08-24.xlsx

APPENDIX B:

Financial Analysis Support Tables

Table B-1 Rent Stabilized Annual Cash Flow Estimate—
Market Rate Base Case ................................................ B-1 Table B-2 Rent Stabilized Annual Cash Flow Estimate—
100% of CPI .............................................................. B-2 Table B-3 Hypothetical Rent Stabilized Gross Rent Roll Estimate— 100% of CPI .............................................................. B-3 Table B-4 Rent Stabilized Annual Cash Flow Estimate—
100% of CPI .............................................................. B-4 Table B-5 Hypothetical Rent Stabilized Gross Rent Roll Estimate— 80% of CPI ................................................................ B-5 Table B-6 Rent Stabilized Annual Cash Flow Estimate—
60% of CPI ................................................................ B-6 Table B-7 Hypothetical Rent Stabilized Gross Rent Roll Estimate— 60% of CPI ................................................................ B-7 Appendix Table B-1
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Rent Stabilized Annual Cash Flow Estimate - Market Rate Base Case Item Assumptions Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 10 Market Rent Increase 3.35%
Allowed Rent Increase (% of CPI) na
CPI (Inflation) 3.00%
Operating Expense Growth 3.00%
Gros
s Rental Revenue $2,388,000 $2,468,043 $2,550,768 $2,636,267 $2,724,631 $2,815,957 $3,320,609 Less Vacancy Loss @ 3.00% ($71,640) ($74,041) ($76,523) ($79,088) ($81,739) ($84,479) ($99,618) Net Rental Revenue - $2,316,360 $2,394,001 $2,474,245 $2,557,179 $2,642,892 $2,731,478 $3,220,991 Less Operations & Maintenance [1] @ 30.00% ($694,908) ($715,755) ($737,228) ($759,345) ($782,125) ($80 5,589) ($933,898) Net Operating Income (NOI) - $1,621,452 $1,678,246 $1,737,017 $1,797,834 $1,860,767 $1,925,890 $2,287,092 Capitalization Rate 6.00%
Building Value $27,024,200 $27,970,769 $28,950,289 $29,963 ,899 $31,012,782 $32,098,158 $38,118,207 Annual Change in Value 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 10-Year Average Annual
Appreciation Rate

3.50%
Return on Investment (ROI) 10-yr = 41.05% 3.50% 7.13% 10.88% 14.76% 18.78% 41.05% Hypothetical Acquisition
(Plus Acq. Cost)
@ 4.00% ($28,105,168)
Net
Operating Income $1,678,246 $1,737,017 $1,797,834 $1,860,767 $1,925,890 $2,287,092 Reversion Value
(Less Marketing Cost)
@ 4.00% $36,593,478
Net
Cash Flow ($28,105,168) $1,678,246 $1,737,017 $1,797,834 $1,860,767 $1,925,890 $38,880,571 Unleveraged IRR 8.84%
Leveraged IRR
Initial Equity Investment @ 30% -$8,431,550
Net
Operating Income $1,678,246 $1,737,017 $1,797,834 $1,860,767 $1,925,890 $2,287,092 Debt Service - Principal (25-yr) @ 6.00% -$358,585 -$380,101 -$402,907 -$427,081 -$452,706 -$605,823 D
ebt Service - Interest (25-yr) @ 6.00% -$1,180,417 -$1,158,902 -$1,136,096 -$1,111,921 -$1,086,297 -$933,180 Reversion $36,593,478
Less Remaining Principal -$14,947,176
Net Proceeds to Developer Equity ($8,431,550) $139,244 $198,015 $258,831 $321,764 $386,887 $22,394,392 Leveraged IRR 12.88%
Source: CoStar; EPS.
[1] For market-rate base case example, op ex as percentage of rental income applied across all years.

Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Cash_Flow_06_19-24.xlsx Appendix Table B-2
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Rent Stabilized Annual Cash Flow Estimate - 100% of CPI Item Assumptions Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 10 Market Rent Increase 3.35%
Allowed Rent Increase (% of CPI) 100.00%
CPI (Inflation) 3.00%
Operating Expense Growth 3.00%
Gros
s Rental Revenue $2,388,000 $2,460,562 $2,536,178 $2,614,897 $2,696,778 $2,781,881 $3,258,336 Less Vacancy Loss @ 3.00% ($71,640) ($73,817) ($76,085) ($78,447) ($80,903) ($83,456) ($97,750) Net Rental Revenue - $2,316,360 $2,386,745 $2,460,092 $2,536,450 $2,615,874 $2,698,425 $3,160,586 Less Operations & Maintenance [1] Yr 0 @ 30.00% ($694,908) ($715,755) ($737,228) ($759,345) ($782,125) ($80 5,589) ($933,898) Net Operating Income (NOI) - $1,621,452 $1,670,990 $1,722,864 $1,777,106 $1,833,749 $1,892,836 $2,226,688 Capitalization Rate 6.00%
Building Value $27,024,200 $27,849,834 $28,714,406 $29,618 ,425 $30,562,487 $31,547,270 $37,111,462 Annual Change in Value 3.06% 3.10% 3.15% 3.19% 3.22% 3.35% 10-Year Average Annual
Appreciation Rate

3.22%
Return on Investment (ROI) 10-yr = 37.33% 3.06% 6.25% 9.60% 13.09% 16.74% 37.33% Hypothetical Acquisition
(Plus Acq. Cost)
@ 4.00% ($28,105,168)
Net
Operating Income $1,670,990 $1,722,864 $1,777,106 $1,833,749 $1,892,836 $2,226,688 Reversion Value
(Less Marketing Cost)
@ 4.00% $35,627,003
Net
Cash Flow ($28,105,168) $1,670,990 $1,722,864 $1,777,106 $1,833,749 $1,892,836 $37,853,691 Unleveraged IRR 8.54%
Leveraged IRR
Initial Equity Investment @ 30% -$8,431,550
Net
Operating Income $1,670,990 $1,722,864 $1,777,106 $1,833,749 $1,892,836 $2,226,688 Debt Service - Principal (25-yr) @ 6.00% -$358,585 -$380,101 -$402,907 -$427,081 -$452,706 -$605,823 D
ebt Service - Interest (25-yr) @ 6.00% -$1,180,417 -$1,158,902 -$1,136,096 -$1,111,921 -$1,086,297 -$933,180 Reversion $35,627,003
Less Remaining Principal -$14,947,176
Net Proceeds to Developer Equity ($8,431,550) $131,987 $183,862 $238,103 $294,747 $353,834 $21,367,513 Leveraged IRR 12.20%
Source: CoStar; EPS.
[1] After Year 0 for rent stabilization examples, operations and maintenance expenses increase at the rate of CPI.

Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Cash_Flow_06_19-24.xlsx Appendix Table B-3
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Hypothetical Rent Stabilized Gross Rent Roll Estimate - 100% of CPI Item Assumptions Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Assumed Units 100
Year 0 Average Rent $1,990
Year 0 Vacancy Decontrol Rent $1,990
Average Number Years in Unit 9.11
Turnover 11.0%
Market Rent Increase 3.35%
All
owed Rent Increase (% CPI) 100.00%
CPI Inflation 3.00%
Gross Units by Occupancy Date
Year 0 (or before) 100.0 89.0 79.3 70.6 62.8 55.9 49.8 44.3 39.5 35.1 31.3 Year 1 - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1 5.5 4.9 4.3 3.9
Year 2 - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1 5.5 4.9 4.3
Year 3 - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1 5.5 4.9
Year 4 - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1 5.5
Year 5 - - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1
Year 6 - - - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9
Year 7 - - - - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7
Year 8 - - - - - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7
Year 9 - - - - - - - - - 11.0 9.8
Year 10 - - - - - - - - - - 11.0
Total Units 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Average Rent by Occupancy Date
Year 0 (or before) $1,990 $2,050 $2,111 $2,175 $2,240 $2,307 $2,376 $2,447 $2,521 $2,596 $2,674 Year 1 - $2,057 $2,118 $2,182 $2,247 $2,315 $2,384 $2,456 $2,529 $2,605 $2,684 Year 2 - - $2,126 $2,189 $2,255 $2,323 $2,392 $2,464 $2,538 $2,614 $2,693 Year 3 - - - $2,197 $2,263 $2,331 $2,401 $2,473 $2,547 $2,623 $2,702 Year 4 - - - - $2,271 $2,339 $2,409 $2,481 $2,555 $2,632 $2,711 Year 5 - - - - - $2,347 $2,417 $2,490 $2,564 $2,641 $2,720 Year 6 - - - - - - $2,425 $2,498 $2,573 $2,650 $2,730
Year 7 - - - - - - - $2,507 $2,582 $2,659 $2,739
Year 8 - - - - - - - - $2,591 $2,668 $2,748
Year 9 - - - - - - - - - $2,677 $2,758
Year 10 - - - - - - - - - - $2,767
Gross Rent $2,388,000 $2,460,562 $2,536,178 $2,614,897 $2,696,778 $2,781,881 $2,870,277 $2,962,038 $3,057,244 $3,155,980 $3,258,336 Source: US Census; Costar; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Cash_Flow_06_19-24.xlsx Appendix Table B-4
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Rent Stabilized Annual Cash Flow Estimate - 80% of CPI
Item Assumptions Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 10 Market Rent Increase 3.35%
Allowed Rent Increase (% of CPI) 80.00%
CPI (Inflation) 3.00%
Operating Expense Growth 3.00%
Gros
s Rental Revenue $2,388,000 $2,447,807 $2,511,406 $2,578,768 $2,649,874 $2,724,718 $3,155,573 Less Vacancy Loss @ 3.00% ($71,640) ($73,434) ($75,342) ($77,363) ($79,496) ($81,742) ($94,667) Net Rental Revenue - $2,316,360 $2,374,372 $2,436,064 $2,501,405 $2,570,377 $2,642,976 $3,060,905 Less Operations & Maintenance [1] Yr 0 @ 30.00% ($694,908) ($715,755) ($737,228) ($759,345) ($782,125) ($80 5,589) ($933,898) Net Operating Income (NOI) - $1,621,452 $1,658,617 $1,698,836 $1,742,060 $1,788,252 $1,837,387 $2,127,007 Capitalization Rate 6.00%
Building Value $27,024,200 $27,643,618 $28,313,934 $29,034 ,334 $29,804,206 $30,623,123 $35,450,120 Annual Change in Value 2.29% 2.42% 2.54% 2.65% 2.75% 3.09% 10-Year Average Annual
Appreciation Rate

2.75%
Return on Investment (ROI) 10-yr = 31.18% 2.29% 4.77% 7.44% 10.29% 13.32% 31.18% Hypothetical Acquisition
(Plus Acq. Cost)
@ 4.00% ($28,105,168)
Net
Operating Income $1,658,617 $1,698,836 $1,742,060 $1,788,252 $1,837,387 $2,127,007 Reversion Value
(Less Marketing Cost)
@ 4.00% $34,032,115
Net
Cash Flow ($28,105,168) $1,658,617 $1,698,836 $1,742,060 $1,788,252 $1,837,387 $36,159,122 Unleveraged IRR 8.01%
Leveraged IRR
Initial Equity Investment @ 30% -$8,431,550
Net
Operating Income $1,658,617 $1,698,836 $1,742,060 $1,788,252 $1,837,387 $2,127,007 Debt Service - Principal (25-yr) @ 6.00% -$358,585 -$380,101 -$402,907 -$427,081 -$452,706 -$605,823 D
ebt Service - Interest (25-yr) @ 6.00% -$1,180,417 -$1,158,902 -$1,136,096 -$1,111,921 -$1,086,297 -$933,180 Reversion $34,032,115
Less Remaining Principal -$14,947,176
Net Proceeds to Developer Equity ($8,431,550) $119,615 $159,833 $203,057 $249,250 $298,385 $19,672,944 Leveraged IRR 11.02%
Source: CoStar; EPS.
[1] After Year 0 for rent stabilization examples, operations and maintenance expenses increase at the rate of CPI.

Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Cash_Flow_06_19-24.xlsx Appendix Table B-5
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Hypothetical Rent Stabilized Gross Rent Roll Estimate - 80% of CPI Item Assumptions Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Assumed Units 100
Year 0 Average Rent $1,990
Year 0 Vacancy Decontrol Rent $1,990
Average Number Years in Unit 9.11
Turnover 11.0%
Market Rent Increase 3.35%
All
owed Rent Increase (% CPI) 80.00%
CPI Inflation 3.00%
Gross Units by Occupancy Date
Year 0 (or before) 100.0 89.0 79.3 70.6 62.8 55.9 49.8 44.3 39.5 35.1 31.3 Year 1 - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1 5.5 4.9 4.3 3.9
Year 2 - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1 5.5 4.9 4.3
Year 3 - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1 5.5 4.9
Year 4 - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1 5.5
Year 5 - - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1
Year 6 - - - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9
Year 7 - - - - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7
Year 8 - - - - - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7
Year 9 - - - - - - - - - 11.0 9.8
Year 10 - - - - - - - - - - 11.0
Total Units 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Average Rent by Occupancy Date
Year 0 (or before) $1,990 $2,038 $2,087 $2,137 $2,188 $2,241 $2,294 $2,349 $2,406 $2,464 $2,523 Year 1 - $2,057 $2,106 $2,157 $2,208 $2,261 $2,316 $2,371 $2,428 $2,486 $2,546 Year 2 - - $2,126 $2,177 $2,229 $2,282 $2,337 $2,393 $2,451 $2,510 $2,570 Year 3 - - - $2,197 $2,250 $2,304 $2,359 $2,416 $2,473 $2,533 $2,594 Year 4 - - - - $2,271 $2,325 $2,381 $2,438 $2,496 $2,556 $2,618 Year 5 - - - - - $2,347 $2,403 $2,461 $2,520 $2,580 $2,642 Year 6 - - - - - - $2,425 $2,483 $2,543 $2,604 $2,667
Year 7 - - - - - - - $2,507 $2,567 $2,628 $2,691
Year 8 - - - - - - - - $2,591 $2,653 $2,716
Year 9 - - - - - - - - - $2,677 $2,742
Year 10 - - - - - - - - - - $2,767
Gross Rent $2,388,000 $2,447,807 $2,511,406 $2,578,768 $2,649,874 $2,724,718 $2,803,306 $2,885,654 $2,971,789 $3,061,747 $3,155,573 Source: US Census; Costar; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Cash_Flow_06_19-24.xlsx Appendix Table B-6
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Rent Stabilized Annual Cash Flow Estimate - 60% of CPI
Item Assumptions Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 10 Market Rent Increase 3.35%
Allowed Rent Increase (% of CPI) 60.00%
CPI (Inflation) 3.00%
Operating Expense Growth 3.00%
Gros
s Rental Revenue $2,388,000 $2,435,051 $2,486,771 $2,543,027 $2,603,707 $2,668,724 $3,056,973 Less Vacancy Loss @ 3.00% ($71,640) ($73,052) ($74,603) ($76,291) ($78,111) ($80,062) ($91,709) Net Rental Revenue - $2,316,360 $2,361,999 $2,412,168 $2,466,736 $2,525,596 $2,588,662 $2,965,264 Less Operations & Maintenance [1] Yr 0 @ 30.00% ($694,908) ($715,755) ($737,228) ($759,345) ($782,125) ($80 5,589) ($933,898) Net Operating Income (NOI) - $1,621,452 $1,646,244 $1,674,940 $1,707,391 $1,743,471 $1,783,073 $2,031,366 Capitalization Rate 6.00%
Building Value $27,024,200 $27,437,403 $27,915,664 $28,456 ,517 $29,057,852 $29,717,886 $33,856,095 Annual Change in Value 1.53% 1.74% 1.94% 2.11% 2.27% 2.85% 10-Year Average Annual
Appreciation Rate

2.28%
Return on Investment (ROI) 10-yr = 25.28% 1.53% 3.30% 5.30% 7.53% 9.97% 25.28% Hypothetical Acquisition
(Plus Acq. Cost)
@ 4.00% ($28,105,168)
Net
Operating Income $1,646,244 $1,674,940 $1,707,391 $1,743,471 $1,783,073 $2,031,366 Reversion Value
(Less Marketing Cost)
@ 4.00% $32,501,852
Net
Cash Flow ($28,105,168) $1,646,244 $1,674,940 $1,707,391 $1,743,471 $1,783,073 $34,533,217 Unleveraged IRR 7.49%
Leveraged IRR
Initial Equity Investment @ 30% -$8,431,550
Net
Operating Income $1,646,244 $1,674,940 $1,707,391 $1,743,471 $1,783,073 $2,031,366 Debt Service - Principal (25-yr) @ 6.00% -$358,585 -$380,101 -$402,907 -$427,081 -$452,706 -$605,823 D
ebt Service - Interest (25-yr) @ 6.00% -$1,180,417 -$1,158,902 -$1,136,096 -$1,111,921 -$1,086,297 -$933,180 Reversion $32,501,852
Less Remaining Principal -$14,947,176
Net Proceeds to Developer Equity ($8,431,550) $107,242 $135,937 $168,388 $204,469 $244,071 $18,047,039 Leveraged IRR 9.79%
Source: CoStar; EPS.
[1] After Year 0 for rent stabilization examples, operations and maintenance expenses increase at the rate of CPI.

Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Cash_Flow_06_19-24.xlsx Appendix Table B-7
City of Salinas
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Hypothetical Rent Stabilized Gross Rent Roll Estimate - 60% of CPI Item Assumptions Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Assumed Units 100
Year 0 Average Rent $1,990
Year 0 Vacancy Decontrol Rent $1,990
Average Number Years in Unit 9.11
Turnover 11.0%
Market Rent Increase 3.35%
All
owed Rent Increase (% CPI) 60.00%
CPI Inflation 3.00%
Gross Units by Occupancy Date
Year 0 (or before) 100.0 89.0 79.3 70.6 62.8 55.9 49.8 44.3 39.5 35.1 31.3 Year 1 - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1 5.5 4.9 4.3 3.9
Year 2 - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1 5.5 4.9 4.3
Year 3 - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1 5.5 4.9
Year 4 - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1 5.5
Year 5 - - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9 6.1
Year 6 - - - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7 6.9
Year 7 - - - - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7 7.7
Year 8 - - - - - - - - 11.0 9.8 8.7
Year 9 - - - - - - - - - 11.0 9.8
Year 10 - - - - - - - - - - 11.0
Total Units 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Average Rent by Occupancy Date
Year 0 (or before) $1,990 $2,026 $2,062 $2,099 $2,137 $2,176 $2,215 $2,255 $2,295 $2,337 $2,379 Year 1 - $2,057 $2,094 $2,131 $2,170 $2,209 $2,249 $2,289 $2,330 $2,372 $2,415 Year 2 - - $2,126 $2,164 $2,203 $2,243 $2,283 $2,324 $2,366 $2,408 $2,452 Year 3 - - - $2,197 $2,236 $2,277 $2,318 $2,359 $2,402 $2,445 $2,489 Year 4 - - - - $2,271 $2,311 $2,353 $2,395 $2,438 $2,482 $2,527 Year 5 - - - - - $2,347 $2,389 $2,432 $2,476 $2,520 $2,566 Year 6 - - - - - - $2,425 $2,469 $2,513 $2,559 $2,605
Year 7 - - - - - - - $2,507 $2,552 $2,598 $2,644
Year 8 - - - - - - - - $2,591 $2,637 $2,685
Year 9 - - - - - - - - - $2,677 $2,726
Year 10 - - - - - - - - - - $2,767
Gross Rent $2,388,000 $2,435,051 $2,486,771 $2,543,027 $2,603,707 $2,668,724 $2,738,005 $2,811,499 $2,889,170 $2,970,997 $3,056,973 Source: US Census; Costar; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 9/4/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\242000\242050 Salinas Rent Stablization\Model\242050_Salinas_Cash_Flow_06_19-24.xlsx City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#25-564, Version: 1
Housing Production Dashboard Update
No action is required. Receive an Administrative Report on Housing Production Dashboard development.

City of Salinas Printed on 12/5/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page | 1

DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2025
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: LISA BRINTON, DIRECTOR
THROUGH: ORLANDO REYES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
BY: VINCENT MONTGOMERY, PLANNING MANAGER

LUIS RODRIGUEZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST

TITLE: HOUSING PRODUCTION DASHBOARD UPDATE

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

No action is required. Receive an Administrative Report on Housing Production Dashboard development.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Staff has spearheaded a collaborative, cross-departmental effort to develop the Housing Production Dashboard, a digital tool that monitors and reports on housing production within the City. The Dashboard tracks and communicates data reported in the Housing Element Annual Performance Report (HE APR), the regulatory instrument submitted annually to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in accordance with Government Code §65400. The HE APR documents the City’s progress toward meeting its housing goals under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations.

The Housing Production Dashboard was developed in response to growing calls for local transparency, regional housing compliance, and performance -based tracking systems tied to the City’s obligations under the RHNA process. By designing the Dashboard data and user interface to align with the data reported in the HE APR, the Dashboard establishes a real-time analytical framework that strengthens informed decision -making, supports compliance monitoring, and tracks housing production across the City, including the Future Growth Areas (FGAs). As these areas advance toward significant residential development, the Dashboard provides the ability to distinguish between affordable and market -rate housing within these strategic zones. Ultimately, the dashboard functions as both a performance monitor and a policy accountability tool.

Page | 2

BACKGROUND
Dashboard Development Process
Establishing the Analytical Framework
On August 4, 2025, City staff initiated a cross -departmental collaboration to conceptualize the Housing Production Dashboard and define its operational framework. After evaluating various options, staff determined that the HE APR, which tracks entitled projects, permit issuance, unit completions, and affordability levels, would s erve as the foundation for dashboard development.

The HE APR provides a standardized, state-mandated method of measuring housing progress and establishes eligibility for State incentives, including funding programs and streamlined permitting under Senate B ill (SB) 35 /423, protections under SB 330, and funding opportunities under Assembly Bill (AB) 101.

SB 35 is the housing law designed to streamline the approval process for housing development and SB 423 extends SB 35 to 2036 to provide a ministerial approval pathway. SB 330 was enacted to speed up housing development which locks in the current land use and zoning at the time of submittal so local jurisdictions cannot make changes during the application process. AB 101 is the State’s effort to address homelessness and affordable housing shortage.

Because the HE APR evaluates a jurisdiction's effectiveness in implementing its Housing Element and meeting RHNA targets by income category, it was identified as the optimal instrument to ensure data accuracy, regulatory alignment, and policy transparency . The City selected the 2024 HE APR as the initial reference dataset for the Dashboard’s beta version.

Data Integration and Technical Implementation
On August 7, 2025 , the data integration phase commenced when the Community Development Department (CDD) staff transmitted the 2024 HE APR dataset to the Public Work ’s GIS Team.

Working jointly, the teams mapped the HE APR data fields to the TRAKiT permit tracking software platform, which houses the City's entitlement and permitting records. By August 8, 2025, the team extracted relevant data points and confirmed a strong alignment between TRAKiT records and APR fields, validating the ability to proceed with technical development.

Recognizing the need to capture affordability levels, the teams convened on August 15, 2025, to establish User Defined Fields (UDFs) in TRAKiT. These fields allow permit s to be tagged by income levels —Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate, in alignme nt with RHNA reporting requirements. Permits Division staff programmed the UDFs following a schema proposed by GIS to facilitate seamless data extraction and integration.

Page | 3
Prototype Deployment and Initial Testing
A prototype Dashboard was tested on August 22, 2025. This early version featured a geospatial map overlaying housing production data and visualized metrics such as units produced, permits issued, and units completed (via certificates of occupancy). CDD Housing staff manually inputted 2024 HE APR data into TRAKiT to validate operational accuracy and ensure output mirrored State reporting standards. By August 29, 2025, the GIS team confirmed that the new UDFs were functioning as intended.

Data Validation and System Calibration
On September 4, 2025, Housing staff completed manual entry of 331 housing permits and development projects from the 2024 HE APR into TRAKiT. This extensive data migration enabled GIS staff to test their extraction protocols and validate Dashboard accura cy. A systems test on September 23, 2025, revealed a minor discrepancy involving eight completed units, which was quickly resolved through targeted debugging. The Dashboard release schedule follows a phased approach: proof of concept , “Alpha” internal testing , “Beta” external testing, and final ‘Production’ release to the public.

On October 29, 2025, the GIS and Housing team met to review progress . The GIS team recommended acquiring Microsoft Power BI to support the agreed-upon user interface, with City Information Technology team assistance required for integration. Over a three-week integration period, the teams collaborated to resolve licensing issues, related to ESRI and Power BI, configure backend SQL queries, and test communication between Power BI and TRAKiT.

By November 20, 2025, the Dashboard had reached version four. Power BI enabled graphical enhancements to improve user experience , and queries were programmed to refresh three times daily to ensure current information.

Interdepartmental Collaboration and Project Team
The success of the Housing Production Dashboard reflects coordinated leadership by staff across the Community Development and Public Works departments . Their collaborative approach and technical contributions have been instrumental in ensuring the Dashboard meets regulatory requirements and advances the City's strategic housing goals.

Strategic Significance and Forward-Looking Utility
Upon full deployment, the Dashboard will deliver transformative value to the City's housing strategy. It will:
 Enable real -time, geographically referenced tracking of housing production by affordability level, tenure, and construction status.

Page | 4
 Provide reliable monitoring of Future Growth Areas, which are critical to Salinas's long- term housing capacity and infrastructure planning.
 Elevate transparency and accountability by offering stakeholders, developers, and decision-makers an accessible platform to review housing trends and outcomes.

From a policy perspective, the Dashboard enhances the City’s ability to comply with State mandates under RHNA, SB 35/423, SB 330 and AB 101. More broadly, it strengthens the City's position in pursuing State housing funds and eligibility for regulatory streamlining by demonstrating a robust, data-driven approach to housing production monitoring.

Next Steps
The upcoming phase will require a significant analytical and operational effort. Staff will manually compile, reconcile, and enter the full 2025 housing production dataset into TRAKiT to ensure the Dashboard reflects accurate, State -aligned information. Each project must be validated for entitlement status, permit issuance, completion milestones, and income -level categorization, consistent with RHNA and HE APR standards.

This data migration will finalize GIS extraction protocols and confirm the Dashboard ’s ability to translate raw permitting data into clear, publicly accessible performance metrics. Following verification, the Housing and Land Use Committee will conduct a structured review, and selected external stakeholders will participate in targeted Beta testing to assess usability, clarity, and data integrity. Feeback from these evaluations will guide final refinements before the Dashboard is presented to the City Council for approval of public release. This phase reflects the City’s ongoing commitment to accuracy, transparency, and continuous improvement in housing production reporting.

With the development of the dashboard, completion of the Housing Summit, and implementation of the Rental Assistance Program – which partners with the Monterey County Office of Education (MCOE) Connections Program to assist families with school -aged children at risk of homelessness, the Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee has concluded its work.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed administrative report 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.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES:

No.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Page | 5

The development and implementation of the Housing Dashboard furthers the City Council 2025- 2028 Goal of City Services by engaging residents and improving communication with the community.

ATTACHMENTS:

Housing Dashboard Screenshots

Housing Dashboard
Update
December 9, 2025
City Council
Orlando Reyes,
Assistant Director
Overview
-The objective of developing a Housing Production Dashboard is to provide a visual overview of the City of Salinas’ progress in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals and showcases significant milestones in carrying out the City’s Housing Element. -As of November 20, 2025, the Housing Dashboard is in version four of its rendering. Power BI software has enabled the GIS team to implement graphical enhancements to improve user experience for residents.

RHNA
Cycle
Summary

RHNA
Allocation
&Progress

RHNA Map
Tracking
City
Progress

Next Steps
•HLUC members to test Dashboard
prior to public release
Questions?
For more information, contact the Housing Division
(831) 758-7334
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/Your-Government/Departments/Community-Development City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#25-583, Version: 1
Minutes
Approve minutes of December 2, 2025.

City of Salinas Printed on 12/5/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#25-258, Version: 1
Master Service Agreements with Citiguard, Inc., Saferock, and 786 Hastraut Inc, dba 247 Private Security for Uniform Security Guard Services
Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into master service agreements with Citiguard Inc; SafeRock; and 786 Hastrust Inc, dba 247 Private Security, to provide uniform security guard services at City facilities each with an initial term of two years, with up to three additional one-year renewal options, and in an amount to not exceed $400,000 annually.

City of Salinas Printed on 12/5/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2025
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, DIRECTOR
BY: CRISTINA GONZALEZ, PW ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR
TITLE: MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS WITH CITIGUARD, INC.,
SAFEROCK, AND 786 HASTRAUT INC, DBA 247 PRIVATE

SECURITY FOR UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into master service agreements with Citiguard Inc; SafeRock; and 786 Hastrust Inc , dba 247 Private Security , to provide uniform security guard services at City facilities each with an initial term of two years, with up to three additional one-year renewal options, and in an amount to not exceed $400,000 annually.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On May 16, 2025, a Request for Proposals was published for uniformed security guard services at City facilities, yielding twenty-two (22) responses. An evaluation committee was formed to review and rank the proposals, ultimately identifying the five highest-scoring submissions. Three of the five firms were deemed responsive and have agreed to the terms of a two-year contract agreement with three additional one -year options , each agreement in an amount not to exceed $400,000 annually. Following the execution of the Master Service Agreements, City departments will have the opportunity to execute individual task orders with any of the three firms on retainer.

BACKGROUND:

In 2017, City staff conducted a thorough review of City-owned facilities, existing security services, agreements, and pricing structures to assess the security needs across various facilities. The analysis concluded that contr acting with professional uniformed security guard services would provide substantial public safety benefits and cost savings. As a result, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to establish Master Service Agreements for security guard services at C ity libraries, parks, the airport, train station, parking facilities, and other City-owned assets. In January 2021, City Council awarded two Master Services Agreements for uniform security services, which are now at the end of their term.

Page | 2
In keeping with its commitment to continuously improve service delivery, the City released a new RFP for Uniform Security Guard Services on May 16, 2025. The proposals were due on June 6, 2025, and a total of 22 bids were received from prospective vendors. This updated R FP was designed to ensure flexibility, enabling multiple vendors to be awarded contracts based on the varying needs of each department and facility.

An evaluation committee, consisting of City personnel, was formed to review the submitted proposals. The committee conducted a comprehensive evaluation based on the criteria set forth in Section 6 of the RFP, which included technical qualifications, experience, and pricing.

Proposal prices were then evaluated using the Ratio Method, and a final score was assi gned to each respondent. With the Ratio Method, the proposal with the lowest cost receives the maximum points allowed, while all other proposals receive a percentage of the points available based on their cost relationship to the lowest proposal. This meth od is one of the three evaluation methods suggested by the State Procurement Bureau for scoring the cost portion of an RFP response. The final award was then determined based on the combination of technical score and pricing, with the most competitive proposals receiving the highest ranking.

Out of the proposal received, the evaluation committee selected the five highest ranking firms for consideration under the Master Service Agreements. A detailed ranking sheet summarizing the proposal evaluation is prov ided in the attachments titled “Ranking”. All five firms were notified of their selection; however, only three were responsive and agreed to the established terms and conditions. Accordingly, the following three firms are recommended for award of a Master Services Agreement:
 Citiguard Inc
 SafeRock
 786 Hastrust Inc dba 247 Private Security

Following the execution of the Master Service Agreements, Departments will have the opportunity to execute individual Task Orders to any of the three firms on retainer, in accordance with the terms and conditions in the Master Service Agreements.

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).

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES:

No.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The approval of the Master Service Agreements supports the City Council’s Vision and Strategic Goal of Public Safety by ensuring the continued provision of professional security services at City Page | 3
facilities. These agreements enhance the City’s ability to maintain a safe and secure environment for staff and the public in a cost-effective and responsive manner.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Public Works Department prepared the RFP in cooperation with the Community Development Department (CDD) and Library and Community Services Departments (LCS). The review of the Proposals was a collaborative effort between LCS, CDD, Police and Public Works Departments.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the approval of the Master Services Agreements. Costs related to the contracted security guard services will be incurred only upon the execution of individual task orders. These task orders will be funded through available and appropriated funds, as needed.

Fund

General Ledger Number
(Operating/CIP)
General Ledger Account
Name

Remaining Budget
Appropriation
Amount Requested

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Citiguard, Inc – Agreement
SafeRock – Agreement
786 Hastrust – Agreement
Ranking
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS FOR UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES

WHEREAS, the City of Salinas recognizes the benefits provided to the general public and cost savings by contracting uniform security guard services for its libraries, parks, the Airport, Train Station, parking facilities, and other City-owned facilities; and

WHEREAS, in January 2021 City Council awarded two master service agreements for uniform security services that are now at the end of the term; and

WHEREAS, on May 16, 2025 , a Request for Proposals (“RFP”), was published on the City’s e lectronic p rocurement website, PlanetBids seeking qualified contractors to provide uniform security services for City facilities; and

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2025 , at the close of the proposal submittal deadline, the City received 22 proposals from qualified contractors to provide uniform security guard services for various departments and City facilities; and

WHEREAS, an evaluation committee, conducted a thorough evaluation and scoring of the proposals based on the criteria set forth in the RFP; and

WHEREAS, using the Ratio Method, each proposal’s cost was evaluated, assigned a score and then combined with the evaluation committee’s score (from the RFP criteria ), thus providing a final “score” from each contractor.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council pursuant to Salinas Municipal Code Section 12 -21, in reference to uniform security guard services contract, that all said proposals are rejected except the proposal of Citiguard Inc, SafeRock, and 786 Hastrust Inc, dba 247 Private Security, being the three most qualified and responsive are hereby accepted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED¸that the City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into Master Services Agreements with Citiguard Inc.; SafeRock; and 786 Hastrust Inc, dba 247 Private Security each for a period of two years, with three additional one-year annual renewal options, and in an amount to not exceed $400,000 annually.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 9th day of December, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

2 APPROVED:

______________________________
Dennis Donohue, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

Agreement for Services v. October 2025

SAFEROCK
NOVEMBER 2025

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SALINAS AND SAFEROCK

On Call Uniform Security Guard Services

THIS AGREEMENT is executed this 9th day of December, 2025, (“Agreement” or “Contract”) between the City of Salinas , a California Charter city and municipal corpora tion (hereinafter “City”) and SafeRock, a California Stock Corporation (hereinafter “Contractor”).

IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Scope.

Contractor hereby agrees to provide to the City, as the scope of services under this Agreement, the following services: Uniform Security Guard Services. Scope of work is further discussed in Uniformed Security Guard Services of City’s Request for Proposals (Attachment B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference) a nd Contractor’s Proposal dated 06/06/2025 (Attachment C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference).

2. Timeliness.

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

3. Term.

This Agreement shall commence on December 1, 2025, and shall terminate on November 30, 2027, unless terminated earlier (the “Initial Term”). This Agreement may be renewed for three (3) optional one (1) year period s (“Renewal Terms”) upon the mutual written consent of the parties. This Agreement may be extended only upon mutual written consent of the parties and may be terminated only pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

4. Payment.

City agrees to pay and Contractor agrees to accept as full and fair consideration for the performance of this Agreement, compensation in the total amount not to exceed Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) annually, as more fully described in title of Contractor ’s fee schedule, Attachment C. Contractor has no right of reimbursement for expenses under this Agreement. Compensation shall become due and payable 30 days after City’s approval of Contractor’s submission of monthly written invoices to the City. The payment of any compensation shall be contingent upon performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the City. If City determines that the work set forth in the written invoice has not been performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, City shall not be responsible for payment until such time as the work has been satisfactorily performed.

5. Meet & Confer.

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

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

Agreement for Services v. October 2025

SAFEROCK
NOVEMBER 2025

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

8. Licensing.

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

9. Termination.

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

10. Agency.

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

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

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

13. Validity.

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

14. Counterparts.

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

15. Laws.

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

16. Subject to Availability of Funds. In the event that the City Council, or other governing body, fails to appropriate or budget sufficient funds for the continuation of this agreement, or should funds become unavailable for any other reason, the City reserves the right to terminate this agreement upon written notice. This termination shall be effective as of the last day of the fiscal

Agreement for Services v. October 2025

SAFEROCK
NOVEMBER 2025

year for which funds were appropriated. Upon such termination, the Contractor will be limited to compensation for satisfactory services rendered up to the termination date.

17. Levine Act Disclosure Compliance (Cal Government Code Sec. 84308). Contractor hereby affirms and warrants that it has not contributed to the campaign of any elected or appointed City official an amount totaling more than $500 within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Agreement, except as Contractor has dis closed within its Levine Act Disclosure Form submitted by Contractor to the City. Contractor agrees, that in the event it makes any contributions subject to the Levine Act’s disclosure requirements within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Agreement, that it will file a Levine Act Disclosure Form (or Forms). Contractor acknowledges this duty of disclosure and that the City has made the Levine Act Disclosure Form(s) readily available on the City’s public internet site under Your Government / Transparency section for Contractor’s continuous compliance.

18. Electronic Execution of A
greement. The words “execution,” “signed,” “signature,” and words of like import in this Agreement and shall be deemed to include electronic signatures or electronic records (including, without limitation, DocuSign and AdobeSign), each of which shall be of the same legal effect, validity, enforceability, and admissibility as a handwritten signature.

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

CITY OF SALINAS

__________________________________
René Mendez, City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney, or
Rhonda Combs, Assistant City Attorney

CONTRACTOR

___________________________________
By (Printed Name): ___________________
Its (Title): ___________________________

Agreement for Services v. October 2025

SAFEROCK
NOVEMBER 2025

Attachment A

Insurance Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreement for Services v. October 2025

SAFEROCK
NOVEMBER 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maintenance of Insurance
Maintenance of insurance by Contractor as specified shall in no way be interpreted as relieving

Agreement for Services v. October 2025

SAFEROCK
NOVEMBER 2025

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

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

Agreement for Services v. October 2025

SAFEROCK
NOVEMBER 2025

Attachment B

Request for Proposal – Uniform Security Guard Services

Agreement for Services v. October 2025

SAFEROCK
NOVEMBER 2025

Attachment C

Contractor’s Proposal
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS:

Uniformed Security Guard Services

Proposals are due by 3:00 pm (PST)
on Friday, June 6, 2025
City Hall
Public Works Department
ATTN: Cristina Gonzalez
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901

ATTACHMENT B

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 1 of 29

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2. GENERAL INFORMATION...................................................................................................................... 2

3. PROPOSER’S MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................... 3

4. PROPOSAL SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................................... 4

5. CONTRACT TERM ................................................................................................................................... 4

6. EVALUATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA ........................................................................................ 4

7. SCOPE OF WORK ..................................................................................................................................... 5

8. PROPOSAL PACKAGE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................. 7

9. PRICING .................................................................................................................................................. 10

10. INQUIRIES .............................................................................................................................................. 10

11. DISCRETION AND LIABILITY WAIVER ........................................................................................... 10

12. PIGGY BACK CLAUSE .......................................................................................................................... 11

13. SAMPLE AGREEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 11

14. COMPENSATION & PAYMENT ........................................................................................................... 11

15. LIST OF FACILITIES .............................................................................................................................. 12 ATTACHMENT 1 – PRICE SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................... 14 ATTACHMENT 2 – SIGNATURE PAGE / VERIFICATION OF LICENSURE .............................................. 15 ATTACHMENT 3 – LOCAL VENDOR DECLARATION FORM ................................................................... 16 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE AGREEMENT ........................................................................................................... 17

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 2 of 29

1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Salinas (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) is requesting Proposals from qualified organizations (hereinafter referred to as “Proposer”) to establish a City- wide Service agreement to provide Unarmed Security Guard Services to various City Departments, the Salinas City Center (SCC) and other Salinas non-profit organizations, agencies and offices located throughout the City.

The awarded Contractor (hereinafter referred to as “Contractor”) will be expected to enter into an agreement for Professional Services (refer to Appendix A). Prior to submitting a proposal, Proposers are advised to carefully read the instructions below including the sample Professional Service Agreement and any solicitation attachments/exhibits. The Term is expected to be for two (2) years with three (3) one-year renewal options.

This solicitation is not intended to create an exclusive service agreement. City retains the ability, at its sole discretion, to select multiple Contractors and add qualified contractors after the signing of the agreement.

The full content of this RFP is available through the City’s PlanetBids Vendor Portal. Proposers can register as a “Prospective Bidder” in one of two ways:
• For FREE through PlanetBids Vendor Portal for the City of Salinas at https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=22949 • Directly via Planet Bids’ website for a FEE at https://vendorline.com/register and sign up for City of Salinas’ bid opportunities.

For assistance in downloading the documents, contact Planet Bids online or by calling 818-992-1771.

Written responses to timely inquiries will be posted on the Q/A tab of the City’s PlanetBids portal no later than 3:00pm, PST, Wednesday, May 28, 2025. Any interpretation of, or correction to, this RFP will be made only by addendum issued via PlanetBids. It is the responsibility of each Proposer to periodically check vendor portal to ensure that it has received and reviewed any and all addendas to this solicitation. The City will not be responsible for any other explanations, corrections to, or interpretations of the documents, including any oral information.

2. GENERAL INFORMATION
The City of Salinas is located on the Central Coast of California, approximately 106 miles south of San Francisco. Named for a nearby salt marsh, Salinas became the seat of Monterey County in 1872 and was incorporated in 1874. As the largest City in Monterey County, the City of Salinas boasts a population 156,600 persons. The City is approximately 23.22 square miles. Salinas and the Salinas Valley offer a unique combination of climate, natural resources and people. The Salinas Valley is known as "The Salad Bowl of the World" for its high- quality production of lettuce, broccoli, mushrooms and strawberries, along with numerous other crops and related service industries.

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 3 of 29

HOMELESS POPULATION
The homeless population within the City of Salinas continues to be a concern to the citizens in the City and the County, local governments, and private property and business owners. Many issues and concerns concentrate around frequent trespassing, littering and loitering. Current Security Guard Services and the Salinas Police Department respond to homeless disturbances involving mental illness and or other disabilities including substance abuse. It is the expectation of the Contractor(s) to have a tested protocol for responding to calls for service that are respectful and sensitive to the rights of all people including those who appear to be or are homeless, and also the laws of the City as they may apply to public intoxication, loitering, sleeping or camping in the public -right-of-way. The selected security firms will have established communication links with the City police, County behavioral health, not-for profit service organizations and others supporting resources to help and support a security staff person's effort to de -escalate and assist a person with no home to live in, displaying erratic or unpredictable behavior in the public, and know how to best address situations that arise as a result of unsocial behavior.

SALINAS CITY CENTER IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
In 2015, downtown property owners voted to form an improvement district and assess their properties.

Early in 2016, the property owners formed a 501(c)3 public benefit corporation called Salinas City Center Improvement Association (SCCIA). SCCIA is now up and running, with a district manager and a full slate of volunteer committees working hard to implement the vision for a vibrant downtown. The Salinas City Center is made up of 130 property owners (which includes the City and County) that own 217 properties within the District.

The Contractor shall have experience in similar types of services. All Proposers responding to this Request for Proposal (RFP) will be evaluated based the expertise, prior experience on similar projects, demonstrated competence, ability to meet the requested services, adequate staffing, reference check, understanding of services, cost and responsiveness to the needs and concerns of the City of Salinas.

3. PROPOSER’S MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Interested and qualified Proposers that can demonstrate their ability to successfully provide the required services outlined in Section 7 – Scope of Work and Section 15 – List of Facilities , of this RFP are invited to submit a proposal, provided they meet the following requirements. If these requirements are not met, the proposal may not receive further consideration, as determined in the sole discretion of the City.
• The Proposer must have 5 years’ experience, within the last 10 years, and demonstrate a comprehensive understanding and practice of the needs of the City, or provide evidence of services equivalent or similar to the services identified in Section 7 – Scope of Work and Section 15 – List of Facilities, and indicate success rate of such services, with data that indicates the cost versus benefit of hiring this company

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 4 of 29

• The Proposer must have a Project Manager/Designated Point of Contact assigned to the Contract, with prior experience working with a similar municipality. • The Proposer must have appropriate certificates/professional accreditations for the state of California to provide requested services, and provide a full spectrum of services offered by the proposer, as well as the organizational structure/chart, company history, company philosophy, overview of services, company strengths, major customers and services provided as requested in Section 7 – Scope of Work and Section 15 – List of Facilities.

4. PROPOSAL SCHEDULE
The following schedule has been established for this RFP. The City of Salinas reserves the right to modify this schedule if it is in its best interest to do so. Notice of changes shall be posted on Planet Bids via an Addendum to this RFP.

TASK DATE
ISSUE RFP May 16, 2025

DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN

QUESTIONS
3pm, PST, Wednesday May 28, 2025
ANSWERS TO Q&A Friday, May 30, 2025

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

DEADLINE
3pm, PST Friday, June 6, 2025
NOTIFICATION OF SELECTION Friday June 13, 2025
CITY COUNCIL AWARD Tuesday July 1, 2025
Dates are subject to change.

5. CONTRACT TERM
The term of the Agreement(s) shall be for a period of two (2) years with the option to extend the agreement for three (3) optional one (1) year periods. City is not required to state a reason if it elects not to renew. Both parties shall agree upon rate extension(s) or changes in writing.

The Agreement shall contain a clause that provides that City reserves the right to cancel the Agreement, or any extension, without cause, with a thirty day (30) written notice, or immediately with cause.

6. EVALUATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA
The City will review all submitted proposals in accordance with the established evaluation criteria.

Following the initial evaluation, the City may conduct interviews with the highest-ranked Proposers, if deemed necessary. The City reserves the right to award the contract not solely based on cost, but to the Proposer(s) whose proposal offers the best overall value, aligns most closely with the service specifications, and best serves the City’s interests. All Proposers will be notified in writing or by email regarding the outcome of the selection process and their status.

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 5 of 29

Proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

35% Demonstrated capacity to fulfill scope of work
20% Established Behavioral Health Protocol and Experience 20% Pricing
15% Qualifications and Experience of Entity and Key Personnel 10% References

Local Purchasing Preference: In accordance with Section 12 -28.040 of the Salinas Municipal Code, contractors that qualify as a local business enterprise shall receive a credit of five percent of the total points. If applicable, Proposers should fill out and submit Declaration of Local Business Enterprise form (refer to Attachment 3).

The City will adhere to the following procedures in evaluating proposals. An Evaluation/Selection Committee (Committee), which may include members of the City's staff and possibly one or more outside experts, will screen and review all proposals according to the weighted criteria set forth above.

While price is one basic factor for award, it is not the sole consideration.

Recommendation for award is contingent upon the successful negotiation of final contract terms.

Negotiations shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure to competing Proposers unless an agreement is reached. If contract negotiations cannot be concluded successfully within a time period determined by the City, the City may terminate negotiations and commence negotiations with the next highest scoring Proposer or withdraw the RFP.

7. SCOPE OF WORK

SECURITY GUARD GENERAL SERVICES
The scope of work includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. Guards shall perform foot, bike, vehicle1 patrols of City facilities unless otherwise arranged.

2. Guards shall observe and report accidents, emergencies, property issues, or potential threats to City Staff immediately and have the ability to contact the Salinas Police Department as the situation warrants.

3. Guards shall observe and report any damage to property or suspicious activity to City Staff or designated representatives.

4. Guards are required to perform an annual site assessment report.

5. Guards shall provide fire watch as needed.

6. Guards shall respond to all activated panic and specific code alarms at each location.

7. Each Facility will develop a comprehensive set of Patrol Orders to be followed by the Guards.

1 Mileage driven by patrol vehicle per month may vary depending on the site.

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 6 of 29

HOURS
Contractor shall define overtime pay start time and end time. Contractor shall provide rates for differentials swing shift and graveyard.

CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS

1. Contractor(s) shall provide City departments, which are contracting for services, with the following:
• Training programs for staff on an annual basis;
• Site assessment reports annually;
• Daily updated activity/incident log reports to the requesting department’s designated contact.

2. Services shall be provided in accordance with sections 11105, 12002, and 12033 of the California Penal Code and Sections 7583.5 and 7583.12 of the California Business and Professions Code.

3. Contractor(s) security guards shall be capable of performing duties independently, receiving general operational direction, and should not require ongoing supervision by the City.

4. Contractor will be responsible for providing its Guards with any equipment necessary to complete their assigned duties, including personal protective equipment (PPE).

5. Contractors are responsible for planning for the required Rest and Meal periods.

6. Contractor(s) security guards providing services under this Agreement are subject to federal and state laws, regulations, and rules pertaining to the confidentiality of information contained in department files and automated records. Contractor(s) employees will receive training about confidentiality and any conflicts of interest matters, the training will be conducted by the City.

7. Breach of confidentiality and/or conflict of interest laws, regulations, or rules by an assigned security guard shall be grounds for replacement of that guard, who may also face possible civil and/or criminal action.

8. City has the right to decline the services of a security guard at any time without cause and, Contractor(s) shall replace the guard in question within two (2) hours of receiving an oral request from the City.

9. City agrees to provide a follow up written record stating the cause leading to the refusal of the security guard service within fifteen (15) days from the time of an incident.

10. Contractor(s) agree(s) that the replacement guard shall complete the unfinished assignment shift of the original assigned guard at no additional cost to the City.

11. As requested by City, Contractor(s) shall require its key security guards and management staff to attend security and safety related meetings conducted by City at no additional cost to the City.

12. Contractor(s) agrees to provide the City with a primary contact person for the general administration of this Agreement.

13. The primary contact person should be available by phone to respond to service request calls made by the City on a 24/7, 365 days per year basis.

14. Contractor(s) shall ensure that security guards present a neat & business- like appearance.

15. The security guards must conduct themselves with courteous professionalism at all times.

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 7 of 29

16. If any license, permit, or approval is necessary from any agency whatsoever for the service or work to be performed pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Contractor(s )will obtain such approvals at its own expense prior to commencement of said work or service under this Agreement.

17. Upon receiving Notice of Award, Contractor(s) shall provide the City with a list of security guards who will be assigned to provide services.

18. For each security guard listed, Contractor(s) shall provide the following information:
• Security guard’s full name;
• Security guard’s date of birth;
• CA State Bureau of Security Guard license number;
• Security guard’s home address, both current address and addresses from the previous three (3) years.

19. Contractor(s) shall update the City list of security guards as personnel changes are made.

8. PROPOSAL PACKAGE REQUIREMENTS
Proposal should include the information as requested and as applicable to the requested services. The proposal package shall be organized as per the table below; headings and section numbering used in the proposal package shall be the same as those identified in the table. Proposal packages shall include at a minimum, but not limited to, the following information in the format indicated:

Section 1 Cover Letter (including contact info)
Signature Page – Refer to Attachment 2
Receipt of Signed Addenda (if any)
Section 2 Pre-Qualification / Licensing Requirements
Section 3 Project Experience and References
Section 4 Statement to Service Entire City
Section 5 Statement to Service Salinas City Center District Section 6 Pricing Schedule – Refer to Attachment 1
Section 7 Appendix

Section 1.

Cover Letter: All proposals must be accompanied by a cover letter not exceeding one page and should provide firm information and contact information as follows:

Contact Info: The name, address, telephone number, and fax number of Contractor’s primary contact person during the solicitation process through potential contract award.

Firm Info: Description of the type of organization (e.g. corporation, partnership, including joint venture teams and subcontractors) and how many years it has been in existence.

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 8 of 29

Signed Signature Page/Verification of Licensure and Signed Addenda (if any addenda were released for this solicitation): Proposal packages submitted without the signed Signature Page/Verification of Licensure ( Attachment 2 ) will be deemed non -responsive. All signatures must be manual and in BLUE ink. All prices and notations must be typed or written in BLUE ink. Errors may be crossed out and corrections printed in ink or typed adjacent and must be initialed in BLUE ink by the person signing the proposal.

Section 2.

Pre-Qualifications/Licensing: Contractor must acknowledge in writing that it meets all of the pre - qualifications and licensing requirements as set forth in Section 3 of this RFP.

Section 3.

Key Staff Persons: Proposer shall identify key staff and their qualifications and experience proposed for the service identified herein.

Experience and Reference: Contractor shall describe at least three (3) similar projects for which it provided services similar to the scope of work described herein. Please include phone number and email address if possible as the City will conduct reference checks using this information.

Violations: Contractor shall submit copies of all notices of violations, corrective action notices, enforcement actions or orders, warning notices, writings, or other forms of permit violation/non- compliance documentation (such as OSHA) received by Contractor, or any business organization owned or operated by the Contractor which are its parent company and/or subsidiaries, from any public agency during 2015 up to and including the present day.

Section 4.

Statement to Service Entire City: Include a statement acknowledging your company is able to provide services to throughout the City at various facilities including: the Airport, Permit Center, Libraries, Recreational Facilities, Parking Garages, Parking Lots, Train Station, Sherwood Hall, and other City- owned Facilities.

If certain locations are to include added fees for travel time, please indicate as such in this statement.

Section 5.

Statement to Service Salinas City Center and Eligible Non -Profit Groups : Include a statement acknowledging your company is able to provide services to the Salinas City Center District (Downtown District) and other eligible non -profit groups based in the City of Salinas and that the same terms, conditions, and rates will be extended to those groups.

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 9 of 29

Section 6.

Attachment 1 – Pricing Schedule (Attachment 1): this form must be submitted with proposal.

Local Business Declaration (If applicable): If Proposer meets the Local Business requirements as set forth in Salinas Municipal Code Section 12-28.050 and would like to have 5% local preference applied to its proposal, it shall be required to complete and submit the Local Business Declaration Form attached hereto as Attachment 3.

Section 7.

Appendices: Contractor may Include here any additional information that it believes to be applicable to this proposal package.

Additional Requirements
To be considered “responsive,” submitted proposal packages shall adhere to the following:

 Original proposal shall be submitted in response to this solicitation. Shall include a cover indicating the company name submitting, and reference to “RFP Citywide Service Agreements to Provide Uniformed Security Guard Services”.
 Proposal packages shall be prepared on 8-1/2” x 11” paper, preferably duplex printed bound with front and back covers. Fold out charts, tables, spreadsheets, brochures, pamphlets, and other pertinent information or work product examples may be included as Appendices.  Reproductions of the City of Salinas Seal shall not be used in any documents submitted in response to this solicitation.
 Contractor shall not use white -out or a similar correction product to make late changes to their proposal package but may instead line out and initial in BLUE ink any item which no longer is applicable or accurate.
 To validate your proposal package, submit the Signature Page/Verification of Licensure (contained herein as Attachment 2) with your proposal. Proposal packages submitted without that page will be deemed non -responsive. Proposal signature must be manual, in BLUE ink, and included with the original copy of the proposal. Photocopies of the Signature Page may be inserted into the remaining proposal copies. All prices and notations must be typed or written in BLUE ink in the original proposal copy as well. Errors may be crossed out and corrections printed in BLUE ink or typed adjacent, and must be initialed in BLUE ink by the person signing the proposal.  CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY CONTENT: Any page of the proposal package that is deemed by Proposer to be a trade secret by the Proposer shall be clearly marked “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” or “PROPRIETARY INFORMATION” at the top of the page.

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 10 of 29

9. PRICING
Proposer(s) will attach and submit a completed Attachment 1- Price Schedule for the provision of services as outlined within this RFP.

Prices stated in Attachment 1- Price Schedule shall be effective from the date the proposal is submitted to the day the contract agreement is awarded and through the initial term of the agreement.

Prior to the start of each project, the City department and Contractor(s) will mutually agree upon the budget for the project. City will provide a defined scope. Pricing may be based upon an hourly rate or by the project, based upon the direction of the user department. Prices quoted for work assignments must remain in effect for a minimum of thirty (30) days.

Invoices submitted for payment will clearly itemize but is not limited to the following:
• the City Department receiving services;
• the purchase order number under which the invoice is to be charged; • the services provided;
• the dates of services.

Proposals shall include any early discounts and/or incentives offered.

10. INQUIRIES
All requests for clarification regarding this Request for Proposals (RFP) must be submitted in writing through the Q&A tab on the PlanetBids website. Questions must be received no later than 3:00 p.m.

Pacific Standard Time (PST) on Wednesday, May 28, 2025. All questions will be answered collectively via an addendum posted to the PlanetBids project page. Final responses will be issued no later than Friday, May 30, 2025.

From the date that this RFP is issued until a contractor is selected and the selection is announced, firms or public entities are not allowed to communicate outside the process set forth in this RFP with any City employee other than the contracting officer listed as a contact on PlanetBids. The City reserves the right to reject any proposal for violation of this provision. No questions other than written will be accepted, and no response other than written will be binding upon the City.

11. DISCRETION AND LIABILITY WAIVER
The City reserves the right to reject all proposals or to request and obtain from one or more Contractors submitting proposals, supplementary information as may be necessary for City staff to analyze the proposals pursuant to the consultant selection criteria.

The City is not liable for costs incurred by Contractors for the cost of the proposal. Contractors submitting a response to this RFP waive all rights to protest or seek any legal remedies whatsoever regarding any aspect of this RFP. All proposals shall be binding for a period of 90 days after the proposal due date. The City also reserves the following rights and options with respect to this RFP:

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 11 of 29

• To re-issue this RFP with or without change or modification, at any time prior to the City’s execution of an Agreement pursuant to this RFP;
• To cancel this RFP with or without issuing another request for proposals; • To supplement, amend, substitute or otherwise modify this RFP at any time prior to the City’s execution of an agreement pursuant to this RFP;
• To waive informality, defect, non- responsiveness and/or deviation from this RFP that is not, in the City’s sole judgment, material to the proposal;
• To request modification of some or all of the proposals following evaluation by the City; • To request clarifications of any proposals;
• To negotiate simultaneously, or otherwise, with one or more Proposer; and • To discontinue and resume negotiations with one or more Proposer

12. PIGGY BACK CLAUSE
Contractor shall indicate in its proposal, Section 6, if it agrees to extend the same prices, terms and conditions of their proposal to other public agencies that have delivery locations within the State of California limits.

Contractor’s response to this question will not be considered in award of the agreement resulting from this solicitation. If and when Contractor extends the prices, terms and conditions of their proposal to other public agencies, any resulting agreement shall be between contractor and the other public agencies and City shall bear no responsibility or liability for any agreements between Contractor and the other public agencies.

13. SAMPLE AGREEMENT
For the Contractor’s information, a sample copy of the standard Services Agreement is included to this RFP as Appendix A. By submitting a proposal, the Contractor agrees to be bound by the requirements under this Agreement.

14. COMPENSATION & PAYMENT
It is mutually understood and agreed by both parties that Contractor shall be compensated in accordance with the pricing sheet attached hereto. Prices shall remain firm for the initial term of the agreement and, thereafter, may be adjusted annually as provided in this paragraph. City does not guarantee any minimum or maximum amount of dollars to be spent under this agreement.

Negotiations for rate changes shall be commenced, by Contractor, a minimum of ninety days (90) pri
or to the expiration of the initial term. Any discount offered must allow for payment after receipt and acceptance of services, material or equipment and correct invoice, whichever is later. In no case will a discount be considered that requires payment in less than 30 days. Contractor shall levy no additional fees or surcharges of any kind during the term of the agreement without first obtaining approval from City in writing.

Pricing shall be inclusive of all applicable taxes.

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 12 of 29

15. LIST OF FACILITIES
The following locations typically require guard services on an ongoing basis and may be subject to change.

Services at additional locations may be requested through the term of the agreement.

Location: City Parking Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, & Intermodal Transit Center (I.T.C.)
Address: Multiple
Service Hours: 8:00am – 4:00pm
Typical Services
Requested:

Random Patrols 8:00am – 4:00pm with a maximum of four (4) patrols a day

Location: Monterey Street
Address: 20 E Market Street
Service Hours: 24 hours a day, seven days a week
Typical Services
Requested:

Random Patrols once an hour every day, seven days a week. Continuous Patrol 9:00pm-2:00am Friday-Saturday, Secure/lockdown and open facility seven (7) days a week

Location: Salinas Street Garage (Permit Center)
Address: 342 Salinas Street
Service Hours: 6:00pm-7:00am
Typical Services
Requested:

Random Patrols once an hour

Location: Salinas Permit Center
Address: 65 West Alisal
Service Hours: Monday – Friday 7:30am – 6:00pm
Typical Services
Requested:

Provide continuous patrol coverage in the morning (7:30 am-9:00am) and evening (5:00pm – 6:00pm) hours, Monday through Friday.

Conduct three (3) randomized patrols between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 pm, Monday- Friday. Patrol coverage must include the abutting Salinas Street Parking Garage.

Location: Salinas City Hall
Address: 200 Lincoln Avenue
Service Hours: Monday - Friday 9am-4pm
Typical Services
Requested:

Period Patrols between 9:00am – 4:00pm around City Hall and Former Police Department

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 13 of 29

Location: Steinbeck Library
Address: 350 Lincoln Ave
Service Hours: Monday 10am-6pm
Tuesday 12pm-8:15pm
Wednesday 11:30am-6pm
Thursday 12pm-8:15pm
Friday & Saturday 10am-6pm
Sunday 1pm-6pm
Typical Services
Requested:

Continuous Patrol throughout operating hours. Current request: 75% of patrol time is devoted to interior/in-facility patrols, 25% of patrol time is devoted to exterior and parking lot patrol

Location: Salinas Recreation Center
Address: 320 Lincoln Ave
Service Hours: 8:00am – 8:00pm Monday - Friday
Typical Services
Requested:

Outside Random Patrols once an hour.

Location: City Maintenance Services Yard
Address: 426 Work Street
Service Hours: Sunset - Sunrise
Typical Services
Requested:

Two (2) Random Patrols per Night.

Location: Salinas Municipal Airport
Address: 30 Mortensen Street
Service Hours: Sunset - Sunrise
Typical Services
Requested:

Three (3) Random Patrols per Night.

Location: Sherwood Hall Community Center
Address: 940 N. Main Street
Service Hours: Event Security Services, various
Typical Services
Requested:

Services requested will vary and are event dependent. Specific work detail will be specified on individual event basis. Typical events include music performances and recitals, seminars, conferences, graduations, community meetings, etc.

Location: Salinas City Center Improvement Association
Address: Downtown Area
Service Hours: Monday - Thursday 6am-8pm
Friday & Saturday 6am – 12am
Typical Services
Requested:

Continuous Patrol of the improvement district by two (2) security officers throughout operating hours

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 14 of 29

ATTACHMENT 1 – PRICE SCHEDULE
The following rate shall be provided:

Supervisor Unarmed Cost
Pay Rate $ /hr.

Billing Rate $ /hr.

Overtime Rate$ /hr.

Security Officer
Pay Rate $ /hr.

Billing Rate $ /hr.

Overtime Rate$ /hr.

Patrol Rate (including vehicle)
Pay Rate $ /hr.

Billing Rate $ /hr.

Overtime Rate$ /hr.

Alarm Response
Response Rate$ /hr.

COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
2-Way Radio Rate $ /hr.

Cellular Phone Rate $ /hr.

Cell/Radio $ /hr.

~End of Attachment 1~

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 15 of 29

ATTACHMENT 2 – SIGNATURE PAGE / VERIFICATION

OF LICENSURE
By submission of a proposal, Proposer attests to having possession of a valid private patrol operator license issued by the State of California. Such license authorizes a Contractor to contract to perform the type of work required by the specifications. Should the Contractor fail to provide below the number of Contractor’s State of California License and City of Salinas, Patrol Service Permit, the City may reject this proposal.

Proposer:

BY:

TITLE:

MAILING ADDRESS:

(City) (State) (Zip)
TELEPHONE NUMBER:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA LICENSE NO.:
(Private Patrol Operators License)

CITY OF SALINAS PRIVATE-PATROL OPERATOR REGISTRATION
CARD NO.:

PROPOSER’S Signature Date

~End of Attachment 2~

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 16 of 29

ATTACHMENT 3 – LOCAL VENDOR DECLARATION
FORM

~End of Attachment 3~

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 17 of 29

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE AGREEMENT

AGREEMENT

FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SALINAS AND
[CONSULTANT’S LEGAL NAME *]

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 18 of 29

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SALINAS AND __________________

This Agreement for Professional Services (the “Agreement” and/or “Contract”) is made and entered into this ____ day of ______, 20_, between the City of Salinas, a California Charter city and municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”), and [__________________], a [California corporation/limited liability company/dba/etc.] (hereinafter “Consultant”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Consultant represents that he, she, or it is specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, Consultant is willing to render such professional services, as hereinafter defined, on the following terms and conditions.

NOW, THEREFORE, City and Consultant agree as follows:

TERMS

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

2. Term; Completion Schedule. This Agreement shall commence on [XXX], and shall terminate on [XXX], unless extended in writing by either party upon (30) days written notice.

This Agreement may be extended only upon mutual written consent of the parties, and may be terminated only pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

3. Compensation. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant for services rendered the City pursuant to this Agreement on a time and materials basis according to the rates of compensation of [or as set forth in Exhibit B] . The total amount of compensation to be paid under this Agreement shall not exceed [__________________dollars ($__________________)].

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

Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant’s bills shall include the following information to which such services cost or pertain:

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

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 19 of 29

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

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

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

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

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

8. Responsibility of City. To the extent appropriate to the projects to be completed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, City shall:

(A) Assist Consultant by placing at its disposal all available information pertinent to the projects, including but not limited to, previous reports and any other data relative to the projects. Nothing contained herein shall obligate City to incur any expense in connection with completion of studies or acquisition of information not otherwise in the possession of City.

(B) Examine all studies, reports, sketches, drawings, specifications, proposals, and other documents presented by Consultant, and render verbally or in writing as may be appropriate, decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not to delay the services of Consultant.

(C) City Manager, or his designee, shall act as City’s representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. Such person shall have the complete authority

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 20 of 29

to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define City’s policies and decisions with respect to materials, equipment, elements, and systems pertinent to Consultant’s services.

City may unilaterally change its representative upon notice to the Consultant.

(D) Give prompt written notice to Consultant whenever City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in a project.

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

10. Indemnification and Hold Harmless.

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

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

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

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

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

14. Changes to Scope of Work. City may at any time, and upon a minimum of ten (10) days written notice, seek to modify the scope of services to be provided for any project to be completed under this Agreement. Consultant shall, upon receipt of said notice, determine the impact on both time and compensation of such change in scope and notify City in writing. Upon agreement between City and Consultant as to the extent of said impacts to time and compensation, an amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared describing such changes.

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

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 21 of 29

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

16. Termination.

(A) City shall have the authority to terminate this Agreement, upon ten days written notice to Consultant, as follows:

(1) If in the City’s opinion the conduct of the Consultant is such that the interest of the City may be impaired or prejudiced, or

(2) For any reason whatsoever.

(B) Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to payment of such amount as fairly compensates Consultant for all work satisfactorily performed up to the date of termination based upon the Consultant’s rates shown in Exhibit B and/or Section 3 of this Agreement, except that:

(1) In the event of termination by the City for Consultant’s default, City shall deduct from the amount due Consultant the total amount of additional expenses incurred by City as a result of such default. Such deduction from amounts due Consultant are made to compensate City for its actual additional costs incurred in securing satisfactory performance of the terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to, costs of engaging another consultant(s) for such purposes. In the event that such additional expenses shall exceed amounts otherwise due and payable to Consultant hereunder, Consultant shall pay City the full amount of such expense.

(C) In the event that this Agreement is terminated by City for any reason, Consultant shall:

(1) Upon receipt of written notice of such termination promptly cease all services on this project, unless otherwise directed by City; and

(2) Deliver to City all documents, data, reports, summaries, correspondence, photographs, computer software output, video and audio tapes, and any other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement. Such material is to be delivered to City in completed form; however, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15 herein, City may condition payment for

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 22 of 29

services rendered to the date of termination upon Consultant’s delivery to the City of such material.

(D) In the event that this Agreement is terminated by City for any reason, City is hereby expressly permitted to assume the projects and complete them by any means, including but not limited to, an agreement with another party.

(E) The rights and remedy of the City and Consultant provided under this Section are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or appearing in any other section of this Agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23. Notices.

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

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 23 of 29

City Manager
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901

With a copy to:

City Attorney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901

(B) Written notices to the Consultant shall, until further notice by the Consultant, be addressed to:

[Contact Information for Consultant including Title, Address, Email, and Phone #]

(C) The execution of any such notices by the City Manager shall be effective as to Consultant as if it were by resolution or order of the City Council, and Consultant shall not question the authority of the City Manager to execute any such notice.

(D) All such notices shall either be delivered personally to the other party’s designee named above, or shall be deposited in the United States Mail, properly addressed as aforesaid, postage fully prepaid, and shall be effective the day following such deposit in the mail.

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

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

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 24 of 29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 25 of 29

failure to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver thereof.

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

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

CITY OF SALINAS

____________________________
René Mendez, City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________
□ Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney, or
□ Rhonda Combs, Assistant City Attorney

CONSULTANT

___________________________________

By (Printed Name): ___________________
Its (Title): ___________________________

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 26 of 29

Exhibit A- Insurance Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 27 of 29

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

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

Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 28 of 29

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

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

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

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

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 29 of 29

Exhibit B- Scope of Service

[Scope of Service; Compensation]

~End of Appendix A~
SB | DVBE Certification ID: 2035446
Woman Owned Enterprise
Minority Owned Enterprise
PPO No. 121921
Corporate: 1(888) 833-2844
N.A Division: 1(877) 477-7771
Investor Relations: 1(888) 786-0280
www.SafeRockSecurity.com
SafeRock
Modern Security, Shaping the Future.

Megan Zadeh, CEO and Founder
Phone: 508-285-8557
Email:[email protected]
2570 N First St, 2nd Floor
San Jose,
California 95131
SafeRock
Attention:

City Hall
Public Works Department
A
TTN: Cristina Gonzalez
200 Lincoln Avenue Salinas, CA 93901
Request for Proposals:

Title: City of Salinas
Uniformed Security Guard Services

ATTACHMENT C
"Cover Letter: All proposals must be accompanied by a cover letter not exceeding one page and should provide firm information and contact information as follows:

Signed Signature Page/Verification of Licensure and Signed Addenda (if any addenda were released for this solicitation): Proposal packages submitted without the signed Signature Page/Verification of Licensure (Attachment 2) will be deemed non-responsive. All signatures must be manual and in BLUE ink. All prices and notations must be typed or written in BLUE ink. Errors may be crossed out and corrections printed in ink or typed adjacent and must be initialed in BLUE ink by the person signing the proposal. " Contact Info: The name, address, telephone number, and fax number of Contractor’s primary contact person during the solicitation process through potential contract award.▪ ▪
Firm Info: Description of the type of organization (e.g. corporation, partnership, including joint venture teams and subcontractors) and how many years it has been in existence.
▪
▪

SafeRock
Cover Letter

"Pre-Qualifications/Licensing: Contractor must acknowledge in writing that it meets all of the pre- qualifications and licensing requirements as set forth in Section 3 of this RFP
. "
4 Section 2.1 - Section 3 Acknowledgement
Section 2: Pre-Qualifications/Licensing
www.SafeRockSecurity.com
1(888) 833-2844
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
SafeRock, Inc. hereby affirms that it meets and exceeds all Pre-Qualifications and Licensing Requirements as outlined in Section 3 of the City of Salinas’ RFP for Uniformed Security Guard Services.

SafeRock is a C-Corporation registered in the State of California, duly licensed by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) under PPO License No. 121921, and maintains full compliance with all applicable State of California regulatory and operational mandates. Our organization has provided professional uniformed security services exclusively to public agencies for over 10 years, including municipal governments, transportation authorities, public health departments, and housing authorities across the State.

We maintain a deep understanding of municipal service environments and their security risk profiles. Our contracts with clients such as Caltrans District 4 (Oakland), the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, and the City of Newport Beach provide direct equivalency to the Scope of Work and facilities profile outlined in Sections 7 and 15 of this RFP. SafeRock’s success rate is reflected in performance continuity, contract renewals, and incident reduction metrics across sites, with cost-benefit advantages derived from strategic post coverage planning, technology-supported reporting, and scalable staffing frameworks.

A dedicated Project Manager with previous municipal experience will be assigned to this contract. Our designated contact will lead onboarding, maintain continuous communication with City personnel, and provide real-time responsiveness through our 24/7/365 Operations Center.

In summary, SafeRock satisfies all minimum requirements, including:

A proven track record of 10+ years of experience, with direct relevance to the scope and nature of services requested by the City of Salinas.
•
Assignment of a qualified Project Manager with prior experience supporting municipalities.• Full licensing and regulatory compliance under California BSIS (PPO #121921).• A
comprehensive suite of guard services, supported by proprietary training (Axess Academy™), compliance infrastructure (ScrtyX™), and organizational capacity tailored to public sector engagements. •
We welcome the opportunity to demonstrate our capabilities in detail and to partner with the City of Salinas in delivering exceptional security services.
•
SafeRock
SafeRock Qualifications / Licensing Statement
Full Name:

Signature:

Date:
5 Megan Zadda
Mozhgan Tabibada
05/28/2025
Section 2.2 - Tangible Insights
Section 2: Pre-Qualifications/Licensing
www.SafeRockSecurity.com
1(888) 833-2844
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
SafeRock, Inc. hereby affirms that it meets and exceeds all Pre-Qualifications and Licensing Requirements as outlined in Section 3 of the City of Salinas’ Request for Proposals for Uniformed Security Guard Services.

SafeRock is a C-Corporation registered in the State of California, duly licensed by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) under PPO License No. 121921, and maintains full compliance with all regulatory requirements applicable to security guard services within the State of California. Our license documentation is included in Exhibit A: Licensing Credentials.

As a certified Woman- and Minority-Owned Business Enterprise, SafeRock has provided professional uniformed security services exclusively to public agencies for over 10 years, including contracts with:

These contracts are directly equivalent to the scope and complexity of work described in Section 7 – Scope of Work and Section 15 – List of Facilities of this RFP. SafeRock’s service model has consistently yielded high performance outcomes, including reduction of property damage, improved public engagement, and full regulatory compliance—demonstrating a measurable return on investment for our clients.

We will assign a dedicated Project Manager with extensive experience overseeing municipal and county security contracts. This individual will serve as the single point of contact, responsible for contract performance, compliance, and continuous collaboration with City-designated personnel. This role is supported by a centralized 24/7/365 Operations Center, Field Supervisors, and a cross-trained relief officer pool to ensure uninterrupted coverage.

Caltrans District 4 – Oakland Headquarters & Maintenance Yards• Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara•
City of Newport Beach – Parks and Public Facilities Patrol• Los Angeles County Department of Public Health•
Placer County County-Wide Armed/Un-Armed Security Officer and Public Parks and Facilities Patrol• SafeRock
Section 2 – Pre-Qualifications / Licensing
Full Name:

Signature:

Date:
6 Megan Zadda
Mozhgan Tabibada
05/28/2025
Capabilities Statement
Modern Security, Shaping the Future.

Preparation: Dispatched personnel prepare for departure, ensuring they have the necessary equipment, uniforms, and any specific tools or documents required for the incident.
•
Travel: The patrol team proceeds to the site, adhering to safe driving practices and maintaining communication with the communications center to provide updates on their estimated time of arrival (ETA). •
Step 3: En Route to Site
Assessment: The operator evaluates the information to determine the level of response required (e.g., routine check, urgent intervention, armed or unarmed personnel). •
Dispatch Decision: Based on the assessment, the operator selects the appropriate personnel and dispatches them to the site. This decision is informed by our KPI database and historical data to ensure optimal resource allocation.
•
Communication with Patrol Team: The operator communicates the incident details to the selected patrol team, providing them with all necessary information and instructions. •
Step 4: Site Arrival and Initial Actions
About Us
At SafeRock we understand the pivotal significance of our internal security personnel in the seamless provision of security solutions to our Government Partners. Our dedication revolves around equipping our personnel with comprehensive training and innovative technology to ensure an unparalleled level of service We take pride in our ability to stay agile and adapt to an extensive array of requirements and regulation, with seamless implementation and scalability. In alignment with ongoing nationwide initiatives, we take a firm stand in recognizing and addressing the urgency of climate change. Our dedication to sustainability is purposeful, and we have undertaken a pledge to uphold our security services contracts with an unwavering commitment to achieving a net-zero carbon footprint. We are not just safeguarding your security needs, but also making a meaningful contribution to the environment. www.SafeRockSecurity.com
1(888) 833-2844
7 Professional qualifications and experience
www.SafeRockSecurity.com
1(888) 833-2844
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
SafeRock Organization-wide Mission Statement and Site Specific Values Transforming Security through Innovation
SafeRock is a pioneering security services company poised to revolutionize the industry by seamlessly integrating cutting-edge technology and innovative practices with the traditional foundation of security guard s ervices. As a
Woman Owned and Minority owned enterprise, SafeRock embraces diversity and inclusivity as core principles, enriching our approach to security solutions.

Empowering Excellence: "Axess Academy"
At the heart of SafeRock's success lies the commitment to continuous learning. Our "axess academy" sets the industry benchmark for training and development, ensuring that our security officers possess the skills and knowledge to excel in any situation. By investing in their growth, we provide our clients with security personnel who are not only adept but also empathetic and responsive.

Blending Technology and Tradition
SafeRock recognizes that modern security demands a blend of technology and human expertise. Our unique approach combines state-of-the-art surveillance systems, AI-powered analytics, and real-time monitoring with the professionalism and vigilance of our highly trained security officers. This synergy provides clients with unparalleled protection against evolving security threats.

Sustainability as a Cornerstone
Net 0 Carbon Emissions SafeRock is driven by a resolute commitment to environmental responsibility. As a trailblazer in the security industry, we are dedicated to achieving a net 0 carbon emissions footprint. Through strategic initiatives, efficient resource management, and the adoption of renewable energy sources, SafeRock aims to set a precedent for environmental stewardship within our sector.

National Brand and Beyond
SafeRock's innovative approach, paired with our dedication to excellence and sustainability, positions us as the partner of choice for organizations seeking comprehensive security solutions that evolve with the times.

Our commitment to diversity, education, and sustainability propels us forward As SafeRock strides towards becoming a household name, we invite you to join us on this journey towards a safer and more sustain able future.

Site Specific Values
Community Centric, Problem Solving Security
Lead with intention towards problem solving, Prioritizing the well-being of the community we serve. By focusing on proactive problem-solving, we aim to create a safe and supportive environment for all stakeholders alike. Our security officers are trained to address issues promptly and effectively, fostering a sense of trust and safety within the community.

Engage With Empathy
Understanding and compassion are at the core of our interactions. We recognize the challenges faced by individuals in crisis and approach every situation with empathy. Our goal is to provide reassurance and support, ensuring that all individuals feel respected and valued.

Objective Reporting that leads into Integrity-Driven Insights SafeRock is committed to delivering integrity-driven insights and reporting that provide the City of Salinas with accurate, transparent, and actionable information. Our approach ensures that all data is collected a nd analyzed
objectively, with comprehensive documentation of incidents and activities. We maintain open and honest communication with all stakeholders, delivering timely daily, weekly, and monthly reports that reflect the true state of operations. Through rigorous verification processes and a commitment to ethical reporting practices, SafeRock ensures that every report we provide is a reliable foundation for informed decision-making, fostering a strong partnership built on trust and accountability.

SafeRock
Company Mission Statement
8 Professional qualifications and experience
www.SafeRockSecurity.com
1(888) 833-2844
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
Demonstrated Service Quality Assurance through Tangible and Measurable Insights SafeRock Case Study Utilizing Parallel Projects Within Our Diverse Portfolio of Public Sector Partnerships At SafeRock, we deliver security solutions that are intentional towards creating measurable outcomes for Government Facilities across California. By combining operational insights, adherence to contract terms, compli ance driven framework
with a commitment to innovation, we have consistently safeguarded facilities, enhanced public safety, and optimized resource allocation designated to the facilities we serve. The following case studies showcase our success in projects directly aligned with City of Salinas's outlined scope in the the RFP highlighting our ability to address similar challenges with solutions based outcomes for all stakeholders alike.

State of California, Department of Transportation / California Highway Patrol Radio Communications Center Caltrans District 4 Headquarters, CHP Northern California Dispatch Center 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612
Site Insights
17 story facility including rooftop,
Caltrans executive penthouse level(s),

CHP dispatch center, 5 level parking
garage and basement.

Personnel Allocation
Security Staff Classification(s)
24/7 Security Guard Services•
11 total security guards on-site•
2 Lobby Ambassadors•
2 Rover Patrol Officers•
2 Special Assignment Officers•
1 Visitor/Vendor check-in and
Temporary ID Station
•
1 Parking Garage Security Officer•
1 Lead Security Officer within the
Security Management Office
•
1 Security Guard Manager•
1 Designated Dispatch Analyst•
AOR (Areas of Responsibility) and AOI (Areas of Interest) The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 4 Headquarters is a high-profile government facility located in downtown Oakland, CA
encompassing a 15-story High-Rise (including rooftop and basement) serving as the administrative hub for transportation operations and CHP across the Bay Area. SafeRock was entrusted with providing comprehensive, 24/7 security services for this vital infrastructure, ensuring a secure and efficient working environment for Caltrans employees, government officials, and visitors.

Security Console Officers (Lobby Reception Kiosk)
2 Roving Officers patrolling the interior and exterior of the building to Monitoring facility-wide CCTV feed.•
Screening and badging all visitors, vendors, and temporary personnel.• Verifying identification and processing access credentials.• Providing wayfinding assistance and customer service.•
Reassess positioning as needed by the flow of traffic.• Recieve shipments from the loading docks and document appropriately. • Canvass the entirety of the facility including all restrooms and 15 floors (plus rooftop and basement)• Daily Maintenance inspections with attentiveness for leaks, inoperable locks, lights, flooding, potential gas leaks etc.• Deter unauthorized access.•
Monitor for safety hazards.•
Respond to security incidents.•
Clear Stair-Wells and other low traffic building AOI's for vulnerable individuals in need of help and other occurrences. • 9 Professional qualifications and experience
www.SafeRockSecurity.com
1(888) 833-2844
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
Demonstrated Service Quality Assurance through Tangible and Measurable Insights SafeRock Case Study Utilizing Parallel Projects Within Our Diverse Portfolio of Public Sector Partnerships At SafeRock, we deliver security solutions that are intentional towards creating measurable outcomes for Government Facilities across California. By combining operational insights, adherence to contract terms, compli ance driven framework
with a commitment to innovation, we have consistently safeguarded facilities, enhanced public safety, and optimized resource allocation designated to the facilities we serve. The following case studies showcase our success in projects directly aligned with City of Salinas's outlined scope in the the RFP highlighting our ability to address similar challenges with solutions based outcomes for all stakeholders alike.

County of Placer HHS Center: Department of Health and Human Services Our team manages conference room security and county meeting protocols, ensuring that sensitive discussions and public hearings are conducted in a controlled and professional environment, similar to the security framework required for City of Salinas’s (City of Salinas) board meetings. Security officers are trained in visitor management, de-escalation techniques, and emergency response protocols, allowing them to safeguard county personnel, residents, and stakeholders attending meetings and public forums. Additionally, SafeRock’s presence extends beyond the building’s interior, with perimeter patrols and parking lot security operations to maintain a secure environment for county employees and visitors.

Servicing this newly built, state-of-the-art facility, SafeRock played a pivotal role in educating the public on proper access points, ensuring a smooth and controlled flow of visitors while maintaining strict security measures for sensitive agency spaces. Our security team conducted on-site public engagement, directing individuals to appropriate entryways, screening locations, and service areas, minimizing confusion and reducing unauthorized access attempts. Additionally, we implemented hourly patrols of staff entrances, reinforcing controlled access to employee-only areas and ensuring site personnel safety from volatile or unauthorized public interactions. By integrating advanced surveillance technology, policy- driven security enforcement, and a proactive response framework, SafeRock delivers a comprehensive security strategy that ensures Placer County’s HHS building operates as a safe, efficient, and well-managed facility for all stakeholders.

AOR - Areas of Responsibility
SafeRock's comprehensive security
services Framework for Placer County’
s
state-of-the-art Health and Human Services
(HHS) building, a modern facility designed
to house multiple county agencies under
one roof, streamlining public services and
inter-agency collaboration.

This multi-functional hub requires a tailored
security approach that balances public
accessibility with strict compliance, safety
protocols, and controlled access measures.

SafeRock ensures seamless policy
implementation by overseeing CCTV
monitoring, enforcing security best
practices, and providing on-site liaison
services for inter-agency coordination.
10 SafeRock
Behavioral Health Expertise & Alignment: Proven Readiness Through Lotus Integration
SafeRock’ s longstanding partnership with Lotus Behavioral Health Center has uniquely prepared our operations team and field of ficers for the demands and sensitivities required at Nevada County’ s Crown Point and Brighton Greens facilities. Lotus, a regional leader in outpatient psychiatric care, transitional support, and high-acuity client services, operates in an environment marked by elevated risk factors and complex interpersonal dynamics. In supporting Lotus over the past three years, SafeRock has developed and field-tested post strategies specific to trauma-informed environments—balancing physical safety with de-escalation-first protocols that prioritize dignity , empathy , and rapport with both staf f and clients.

The behavioral health service model requires more than a security presence—it requires a situationally adaptive, emotionally intelligent team. At Lotus, our of ficers are trained to intervene non-aggressively in behavioral escalations, assist in voluntary and involuntary check-ins, and maintain a calm and steady presence during client medication cycles, group sessions, and emergent behavioral episodes. These exact responsibilities mirror those outlined in Nevada County’ s RFP for the Crown Point Behavioral Health Facility , where staf f, patients, and visitors interact in a similarly sensitive, high-expectation setting. The ability to balance firmness with humanity has become a core tenet of SafeRock’ s behavioral health deployment model.

Operationally , our experience at Lotus has allowed us to build a repeatable, scalable implementation framework for mental health and social services environments. W e have pre-developed training modules through Axess Academy for scenarios ranging from de-escalation to dual-diagnosis engagement, along with embedded ScrtyX reporting workflows tailored to behavioral risk environments. Our of ficers are briefed daily via digital modules and micro-quizzes to ensure alignment with HIP AA, visitor tracking, and medical facility access protocols—ensuring seamless transfer of these same operational practices into Nevada County’ s behavioral health and social service locations.

Moreover , SafeRock’ s supervisory structure, client communication practices, and post auditing routines were built in tandem with Lotus to address real-time risks and maintain transparency at every operational layer . These systems, now hardened through real-world practice, will allow us to execute a near plug-and- play transition into County-operated facilities. From initial post onboarding to live reporting, our behavioral health capabilities—proven and refined through Lotus—enable us to deliver the County a team that’ s not just trained for the environment, but fully immersed in it. This existing alignment ensures a low-friction launch, high reliability , and immediate continuity of service. 1 1
Professional qualifications and experience
www.SafeRockSecurity.com
1(888) 833-2844
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
Demonstrated Service Quality Assurance through Tangible and Measurable Insights The Housing Programs Office (HPO) at the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino (HACSB), located at 715 E. Brier Drive, San Bernardino, CA, serves as a critical administrative hub for the management and coordination of housing programs, rental assistance, and supportive services for the community.

As an essential facility for public housing programs, Section 8 administration, and housing choice voucher services, the HPO requires a security strategy tailored to its high-volume foot traffic, client interactions, and regulatory compliance requirements. SafeRock was engaged to provide a specialized security framework that ensures the safety of personnel, clients, and agency partners while maintaining a professional and accessible environment for housing services.

SafeRock’s sensitivity training and emotional intelligence-driven approach have been instrumental in equipping our security personnel with the skills needed to navigate diverse visitor interactions at the Housing Programs Office (HPO).

Our guards undergo scenario-specific training that integrates emotional intelligence frameworks to de-escalate high- tension situations, such as handling angry landlords disputing lease issues, frustrated applicants facing delays, or distressed individuals seeking housing assistance. Security personnel are trained to assess emotional cues, apply active listening techniques, and use non-confrontational communication to defuse conflicts while maintaining a professional and supportive presence. Additionally, our officers provide structured visitor guidance, ensuring that all guests check in, log their visit, take a number, and wait in the designated waiting areas. Officers are also trained to direct visitors to the appropriate documents or pamphlets that may assist them while they wait, improving overall visitor flow and efficiency.

Beyond the facility’s entry points, SafeRock extends its security presence to staff parking areas during opening and closing hours, offering peace of mind and a visible deterrent against potential security risks. Officers are responsible for locking and unlocking designated staff and visitor parking lots during business hours, reinforcing a secure and well- managed environment from arrival to departure.

NOTE: SafeRock has implemented a rotating Friday security schedule, mirroring the operational model used by agencies such as the City of Salinas (City of Salinas) and other parallel housing authorities San Bernardino County Housing Authority (HACSB), Housing Programs Office (HPO) 672 S Waterman Ave, San Bernardino, CA 92408, USA
Placer County Department of Child Support Services (PLDCSS) office 1000 Sunset Blvd in Rocklin, CA
SafeRock provides specialized armed security services for the Placer County Department of Child Support Services (PLDCSS) office, located at 1000 Sunset Blvd in Rocklin, CA, ensuring a safe and structured environment for employees, visitors, and legal representatives. Given the high-stakes nature of child support cases, this facility often experiences heightened emotions, confrontational disputes, and security-sensitive interactions, necessitating a strategic security framework tailored to risk mitigation and controlled access.

SafeRock’s armed security personnel are highly trained in weapons screening, visitor logging, and access control enforcement, ensuring that only authorized individuals enter designated areas. At all entry points, officers conduct thorough weapons screening using state-of-the-art detection equipment, preventing unauthorized firearms, edged weapons, or contraband from entering the facility. Our access control measures include real-time visitor tracking, ID verification, and scheduled appointment confirmation, ensuring that all guests adhere to county policies before proceeding to service areas.

To further enhance security, SafeRock officers provide continuous monitoring of high-risk interactions, remaining vigilant for potential escalations and employing de-escalation techniques when necessary. Our team also maintains strict perimeter security, conducting routine patrols of parking lots and facility entryways to deter unauthorized loitering, threats, or safety concerns for county employees and visitors. 12 Professional qualifications and experience
www.SafeRockSecurity.com
1(888) 833-2844
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
Demonstrated Service Quality Assurance through Tangible and Measurable Insights 1 Parking Garage Security Officer, overseeing:

Multi-clearance-level parking security, managing:
1 Security Officer Managing the Security Management Office, responsible for:
1 Emergency Response Officer, handling:

Rapid coordination with:

Multi-Tiered Access Control and Badge Management System SafeRock implemented new behavior patterns and managed operations transitioning a sophisticated multi-clearance- level access badge control system across all 15 floors of the facility:

Integration of Technology in Security Operation - Implemented technology-driven security enhancements to streamline security operations and improve real-time situational awareness Real-time digital logging of security events, including Notable Facility Security Features Managed by SafeRock
SafeRock ensured the safeguarding of key government infrastructure assets, including:

SafeRock’s performance at Caltrans District 4 Headquarters underscores our proven ability to manage complex, high- security environments. Our advanced security framework, real-time incident response, and strategic access control solutions to create a secure collaborative eco-system make us the ideal partner for the City of Salinas Smart Corner Security Services contract.

Caltrans fleet vehicles.•
Executive parking areas.•
CHP parking zones.•
Guiding/checking in visitor vehicles and reserved parking patrons to the appropriate stalls.• Traffic flow optimization for seamless vehicle entry/exit.• Issuing and managing ID badges through a structured and compliant process.• Coordinating with the State of California DOT Access Control Team for real-time credential updates.• Ensuring strict multi-level clearance protocols.•
Caltrans Operations.•
California Highway Patrol (CHP).•
Fleet Management Teams.•
State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies.•
Emergency lockdown and evacuation procedures.•
Reprogrammed the facility-wide badge system to enforce clearance scanning at all controlled access points.• Strict adherence to access control compliance, ensuring only authorized personnel gain entry to secure areas.• Conducted regular access audits in collaboration with state agencies to maintain regulatory compliance.• Streamlined visitor and vendor badge issuance, ensuring real-time tracking and security logging.• Incident reports.•
Access control alerts.•
Security patrol verification.•
Geo-fenced mobile patrol tracking, ensuring full compliance with assigned coverage zones.• Multi-channel radio communication system, facilitating direct coordination with law enforcement, facility management, and emergency responders.
•
Total Building Square Footage: 810,000 sq. ft.•
Parking Garage CapaCounty: 500+ vehicles, including fleet, executive, and contractor parking.• 15 floors of secured office space, featuring high-clearance executive offices and mission-critical operations rooms.• Statewide emergency coordination center for California’s transportation network.• Comprehensive CCTV coverage, integrated with real-time badge-access monitoring systems.• State of California, Department of Transportation / California Highway Patrol Radio Communications Center Caltrans District 4 Headquarters, CHP Northern California Dispatch Center 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612
13 Professional qualifications and experience
www.SafeRockSecurity.com
1(888) 833-2844
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
Demonstrated Service Quality Assurance through Tangible and Measurable Insights Case Study: Expertise in Transient Intervention & Encampment Management Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino (HACSB) – Waterman Gardens Project Upon assuming security operations at the HACSB Waterman Gardens Project, SafeRock was tasked with addressing persistent transient encampments and unauthorized occupancy across the site. Our team executed a com prehensive
encampment clearing initiative, leveraging emotional intelligence protocols to ensure a humane and structured approach to the relocation of unhoused individuals.

SafeRock’s security officers underwent specialized training in transient intervention, crisis de-escalation, and resource-driven engagement to handle encampment disbandment with dignity and compliance. Officers provided structured and documented notifications before initiating clearances, ensuring that residents were given ample time to gather personal belongings. During the removal process, our team engaged in non-confrontational dialogue, directing individuals to local assistance programs and alternative housing resources.

Post-clearance, SafeRock established a preventative security framework, implementing routine patrols, perimeter monitoring, and rapid response measures to prevent future encampment resurgence. By maintaining a consistent security presence, we restored site integrity, improved resident safety, and facilitated the revitalization of Waterman Gardens into a secure and livable community.

County of Newport Beach, Public Works Department – Overnight County-Wide Patrols & Homeless Outreach Collaboration
SafeRock provides overnight security patrols for 38 County-owned facilities across Newport Beach, ensuring the protection of public buildings, parks, beaches, and restrooms while also addressing transient activi ty in public spaces.

Our approach balances public safety enforcement with compassionate intervention, ensuring that unhoused individuals are directed toward services rather than forcibly displaced without support.

Our security officers actively collaborate with the PATH (People Assisting the Homeless) Program, distributing information on temporary shelters, transitional housing, and supportive resources to individuals found sleeping in public parks, beach areas, and County facilities. This proactive engagement allows SafeRock to clear public spaces of unauthorized occupancy while simultaneously connecting individuals to sustainable housing pathways.

In addition to patrolling high-traffic public areas, SafeRock maintains a presence at County restrooms and public access points, ensuring that facilities remain safe, clean, and accessible to the community. Our security framework includes visibility-based deterrence patrols, ensuring that residents and visitors feel safe when utilizing public spaces.

By combining structured security enforcement with human-centered outreach, SafeRock supports Newport Beach’s commitment to public safety, community welfare, and responsible transient intervention.

PORTFOLIO
+108
14 SafeRock
SafeRock's NPPI Policy: Proactive Approach to Cybersecurity and Information Protection Safeguarding Sensitive Information in the Era of Cyber Crime In response to the recent global surge in cybercrime, particularly targeting sensitive Non-Public Personal Information (NPPI) and critical data, SafeRock has taken a proactive stance in fortifying our cybersecurity measures. Recognizing the importance of safeguarding the City of Salinas information and critical data, we have established a dedicated Cybersecurity Team focused on ensuring the proper organizational-wide handling of sensitive information.

The Cybersecurity Team: A Specialized Task Force
Our Cybersecurity Team comprises experts in information security, data protection, and cyber threat analysis. This specialized task force is responsible for:

Continuous Monitoring and Improvement
Our Cybersecurity Team employs cutting-edge technology and monitoring tools to keep a vigilant eye on our systems and networks. By continuously scanning for suspicious activities and potential threats, we can proactively address vulnerabilities and strengthen our defenses.

We are committed to staying ahead of the curve in cybersecurity, regularly updating our policies and practices to counteract the evolving landscape of cyber threats. This proactive approach ensures that the City of Salinas information and critical data are safeguarded with the utmost diligence, providing peace of mind in an era where cybercrime poses a significant risk.

Risk Assessment: Conducting regular assessments to identify potential vulnerabilities and emerging threats to the County's information and critical data. •
Security Protocols: Developing and implementing robust security protocols, including encryption, access controls, and secure communication channels, to protect sensitive information from

unauthorized access or breaches.
•
Employee Training: Providing comprehensive training to all SafeRock personnel on best practices for handling NPPI and client/agency information, emphasizing the importance of

confidentiality and data security.
•
Incident Response: Establishing a rapid response protocol to swiftly address any potential security incidents, minimizing the impact and preventing the compromise of sensitive information. •
15 Analytics
SafeRock's Analytics Team is a pivotal component of our security operations, leveraging advanced data analysis techniques to drive informed decision-making and enhance overall security effectiveness. Analytics plays a crucial role in enhancing our service quality and setting us apart in the security industry. Comprising of professionals with expertise in data analysis, statistical modeling, and predictive analytics, our team is equipped wit h the necessary
tools and knowledge to extract valuable insights from large datasets. Their primary functions include real-time monitoring and alerting, predictive modeling and risk assessment, performance evaluation and optimization, and strategic decision support. By continuously monitoring security metrics, identifying trends and patterns, and forecasting potential risks, our Analytics Team empowers decision-makers with actionable insights to optimize resource allocation, prioritize security measures, and mitigate threats effectively. Their expertise enables us to stay ahead of evolving security challenges, ensuring the safety and security of our clients' assets and stakeholders Expertise in Data Analysis
SafeRock's Analytics Team comprises skilled professionals with expertise in data analysis, statistical modeling, and predictive analytics.

They possess advanced analytical tools and techniques to extract meaningful insights from large datasets, enabling us to identify trends, patterns, and anomalies that impact security operations.

Real-time Monitoring and Alerting
One of the key functions of our Analytics Team is real-time monitoring and alerting. By continuously monitoring various security metrics and indicators, such as patrol routes, incident reports, and access control logs, our team can
quickly identify and respond to security threats or breaches as they occur, minimizing potential risks and ensuring timely intervention.

Predictive Modeling and Risk Assessment
Our Analytics Team utilizes predictive modeling techniques to forecast security risks and anticipate potential threats proactively
. By analyzing historical data and identifying risk factors, such as high-crime areas, past site reports, traffic trends or vulnerable entry points, our team can develop predictive models that help prioritize resource allocation and implement intentional security measures to prepare for risks effectively.

Performance Evaluation and Optimization
SafeRock's Analytics Team conducts ongoing performance evaluation of security operations to assess effectiveness and identify areas for improvement.

Through comprehensive performance metrics analysis, including response times, incident resolution rates, and patrol coverage, our team can pinpoint operational inefficiencies and optimize resource allocation to enhance overall security performance.

Strategic Decision Support
Our Analytics Team provides strategic decision support to senior management and operational stakeholders by delivering actionable insights and recommendations based on data-driven analysis. Whether it's optim izing patrol
routes, adjusting staffing levels, or implementing new technology solutions, our team empowers decision-makers with the information they need to make informed choices that drive operational excellence and security effectiveness.

SafeRock
16 17
www.SafeRockSecurity.com | 1(888)833-2844
Global Insights, Local Presence.

Operations Framework
Project Implementation Map
Phase I: Pre-Commencement Stage
This foundational phase begins immediately after contract execution and prior to the mutually agreed upon launch date. During this stage, SafeRock initiates a structured onboarding process in collaboration with the designated client team. Objectives include full site integrations,

definition of expected service outcomes, identification of key communication points, and alignment on milestone targets. The goal is to co-develop clearly defined operational guidelines, success criteria, and a tactical workplan that will drive program execution and accountability.

Phase II: Preparation for Day One Operations
The second phase focuses on ensuring full operational readiness and enabling uninterrupted service continuity on Day One. SafeRock’s transition team will deploy resources to configure all essential equipment onsite, issue uniforms to designated personnel, verify patrol vehicle placement,

and ensure system integrations are live and tested. This phase includes infrastructure validation, post order finalization, and dry-run exercises designed to “de-risk” the operational changeover. Emphasis is placed on precision execution and proactive positioning of all field staff to ensure a seamless transition and optimal Day One performance.

Phase III: Day One Assurance
This phase begins the moment live operations commence. During this critical window, management oversight intensifies with a focus on operational agility and real-time issue resolution. Supervisors and project leadership will monitor site performance, solicit feedback directly from

officers, and identify any inefficiencies that require immediate adjustment. Officer input will be used as operational intelligence, helping leadership calibrate procedures. Adjustments and performance insights will be shared with stakeholders to maintain alignment. This framework remains active through the first quarter or until key performance benchmarks confirm operational maturity.

Phase IV: Monthly/Ongoing – Ensuring Operational Integrity At the conclusion of the first month, SafeRock enters a data-driven performance optimization phase. Site reports, incident logs, and digital activity data will be analyzed to identify patterns, anomalies, and risk trends. Our in-house Analytics team will review daily activity reports (DARs), incident
narratives, and geographic heat maps to anticipate vulnerabilities and shape preventative patrol strategies. Recommendations are then provided to the Training and Compliance Division, which implements continuous education via live sessions, reference videos, and updated SOP briefings for the field team. These findings and adaptations are shared with client stakeholders regularly, fostering a month-over-month improvement cycle.

Phase V: Quarterly/Ongoing – Maintaining Staff Accountability The final phase establishes a quarterly cadence for evaluating on-site personnel performance, compliance, and consistency. SafeRock will assess each security officer against a set of tangible KPIs, including attendance records, reporting accura cy, adherence to site-specific training protocols,
and effectiveness in applying equipment and technology. Supervisor insights, client feedback, and documented behavior will inform performance reviews, which may lead to recognition, retraining, or realignment of personnel as needed. This cycle ensures continued service alignment, accountability, and performance resilience throughout the term of the engagement.

SafeRock
Operations
18 www.SafeRockSecurity.com | 1(888)833-2844
Global Insights, Local Presence.

Operations Framework
Project Implementation Map
Phase I: Pre-Commencement Stage
This foundational phase begins immediately after contract execution and prior to the mutually agreed upon launch date. During this stage, SafeRock initiates a structured onboarding process in collaboration with the designated client team. Objectives include full site integrations,

definition of expected service outcomes, identification of key communication points, and alignment on milestone targets. The goal is to co-develop clearly defined operational guidelines, success criteria, and a tactical workplan that will drive program execution and accountability.

Phase II: Preparation for Day One Operations
The second phase focuses on ensuring full operational readiness and enabling uninterrupted service continuity on Day One. SafeRock’s transition team will deploy resources to configure all essential equipment onsite, issue uniforms to designated personnel, verify patrol vehicle placement,

and ensure system integrations are live and tested. This phase includes infrastructure validation, post order finalization, and dry-run exercises designed to “de-risk” the operational changeover. Emphasis is placed on precision execution and proactive positioning of all field staff to ensure a seamless transition and optimal Day One performance.

Phase III: Day One Assurance
This phase begins the moment live operations commence. During this critical window, management oversight intensifies with a focus on operational agility and real-time issue resolution. Supervisors and project leadership will monitor site performance, solicit feedback directly from

officers, and identify any inefficiencies that require immediate adjustment. Officer input will be used as operational intelligence, helping leadership calibrate procedures. Adjustments and performance insights will be shared with stakeholders to maintain alignment. This framework remains active through the first quarter or until key performance benchmarks confirm operational maturity.

Phase IV: Monthly/Ongoing – Ensuring Operational Integrity At the conclusion of the first month, SafeRock enters a data-driven performance optimization phase. Site reports, incident logs, and digital activity data will be analyzed to identify patterns, anomalies, and risk trends. Our in-house Analytics team will review daily activity reports (DARs), incident
narratives, and geographic heat maps to anticipate vulnerabilities and shape preventative patrol strategies. Recommendations are then provided to the Training and Compliance Division, which implements continuous education via live sessions, reference videos, and updated SOP briefings for the field team. These findings and adaptations are shared with client stakeholders regularly, fostering a month-over-month improvement cycle.

Phase V: Quarterly/Ongoing – Maintaining Staff Accountability The final phase establishes a quarterly cadence for evaluating on-site personnel performance, compliance, and consistency. SafeRock will assess each security officer against a set of tangible KPIs, including attendance records, reporting accura cy, adherence to site-specific training protocols,
and effectiveness in applying equipment and technology. Supervisor insights, client feedback, and documented behavior will inform performance reviews, which may lead to recognition, retraining, or realignment of personnel as needed. This cycle ensures continued service alignment, accountability, and performance resilience throughout the term of the engagement.

SafeRock
Operations
19 Dallas Danials
Project Field Supervisor
Allen Shams
SafeRock Operations Point of Contact
Francis Vallejo
Recruiting and Personnel Analyst
Sara Cracraft
Project Payroll and HR Coordinator
Megan Zada
SafeRock Administrative Point of
Contact
CIty of Salinas
Post Site(s)
SafeRock
24hr Dispatch Command Center
City Of Salinas
Procurement Department
Dalton Leech
Analytics and On-Going Training
Architect
SafeRock
20 www.SafeRockSecurity.com | 1(888)833-2844
Global Insights, Local Presence.

Ensuring transparent, direct and prompt correspondence to foster intentional communication.

Tiered Analyst Scheduling Model
To optimize continuity and eliminate single-point vulnerabilities, the following tiered analyst coverage model and communications framework will be deployed and

implemented:

Primary Analyst – Shift A (Days):

Manages daily operations, aligns resources in real time, ensures reporting cadence is met, and coordinates directly with County stakeholders and LASD dispatch.

Secondary Analyst – Shift B (Evenings)
Takes operational handoff from Shift A, manages after-hours dispatch cycles, and handles adaptive response assignments or emergent resourcing needs.

Alternate Analyst – Swing/Flex (Weekends & Holidays)
Fully trained on all post sites and operational protocols, available to ensure uninterrupted coverage during surge events, holidays, or in the event of unplanned absences.

This three-tier system enables round-the-clock operational knowledge retention and real-time decision-making aligned with contractual service levels. It is further supported by ScrtyX, our AI-powered dispatch dashboard and performance analytics tool, which integrates incident reporting, GPS verification, and biometric authentication to validate service execution.

Through this model, SafeRock ensures that dispatch operations are not reactive, but proactive—driving contract compliance, minimizing lag in resource deployment, and enhancing transparency for all stakeholders.

Designated Project Dispatch Analyst and Dedicated Nevada Hotline Implementation To ensure precision in service execution, SafeRock will deploy a fully centralized and dedicated 24/7 Dispatch Center, engineered specifically to support the operational and compliance demands of the City of Salinas contract. This dispatch infrastructure is the command node of our service delivery model, designed to provide continuous visibility, resource allocation, and data integrity across all active Community Safety Officer (CSO) posts.

At the core of this framework is our Dispatch Analyst Program—a strategic staffing model that embeds contract intelligence and site-specific operational fluency directly into our dispatch function. Each dispatch analyst is trained in the granularities of the project scope, including:

Detailed understanding of every CSO post assignment◦
Task classification protocols and daily directives◦
Shift transitions and contingency coverage◦
Site-specific technology configurations, including mobile data terminals, radio logs, and LASD-integrated reporting flows
◦
Post Order escalations, resource surging, and civic engagement priorities◦ Transparent and Response Time Focused Communications Framework Dedicated Project Dispatch Analyst, 24/7 Community and County Hotline SafeRock
21 On-Call Framework and Operations Plan
Agile and Frictionless - Response Time Centric Communication Model Our on-call framework and operations plan are designed to ensure swift, effective responses to security incidents at any time. By once again integrating agile project management, continuous training, and data-driven strategies, we maintain a state of readiness and preparation to address emergencies and routine security needs with precision, empathy, compliance and professionalism.

Step 1: Intake Call
Reception of Call: Our 24/7 communications center receives the intake call from the client or an on-site contact, reporting a security incident or request for immediate assistance.
•
Information Gathering: The operator collects critical information, including the nature of the incident, location, urgency, contact details, and any specific instructions or concerns.
•
Logging the Call: All details of the call are logged into our incident management system, ensuring accurate records and facilitating follow-up actions. •
Step 2: Assessment and Dispatch
Assessment: The operator evaluates the information to determine the level of response required (e.g., routine check, urgent intervention, armed or unarmed personnel). •
Dispatch Decision: Based on the assessment, the operator selects the appropriate personnel and dispatches them to the site. This decision is informed by our KPI database and historical data to ensure optimal resource allocation. •
Communication with Patrol Team: The operator communicates the incident details to the selected patrol team, providing them with all necessary information and instructions. •
Preparation: Dispatched personnel prepare for departure, ensuring they have the necessary equipment, uniforms, and any specific tools or documents required for the incident.
•
Travel: The patrol team proceeds to the site, adhering to safe driving practices and maintaining communication with the communications center to provide updates on their estimated time of arrival (ETA). •
Step 3: En Route to Site
Assessment: The operator evaluates the information to determine the level of response required (e.g., routine check, urgent intervention, armed or unarmed personnel). •
Dispatch Decision: Based on the assessment, the operator selects the appropriate personnel and dispatches them to the site. This decision is informed by our KPI database and historical data to ensure optimal resource allocation.
•
Communication with Patrol Team: The operator communicates the incident details to the selected patrol team, providing them with all necessary information and instructions. •
Step 4: Site Arrival and Initial Actions
Implementation of Protocols: The patrol team follows established protocols tailored to the nature of the incident. This may include:

Documentation:

Throughout the intervention, the team documents their actions, observations, and any communications in real-time using our incident reporting system.

Securing the area•
Conducting a thorough inspection•
Escorting unauthorized individuals•
Coordinating with local law enforcement or emergency services if necessary
•
Step 5: Actions and Protocols
Final Check: Before departing, the team ensures that the site is secure and that all immediate threats have been mitigated.

Departure Notification: The team notifies the
communications center of their departure and provides a summary of the actions taken and the current status of
the site.

Incident Report: A detailed incident report is completed and submitted to the communications center and the
client, highlighting key findings, actions taken, and
recommendations for future preventative measures.

Step 6: Departure and Reporting
Client Communication: The communications center follows up with the client to confirm receipt of the incident report, address any additional concerns, and provide further assistance if needed.

Data Analysis: Incident data is analyzed and integrated into our KPI database to refine our security strategies and improve responses.

Step 7: Follow-Up
www.SafeRockSecurity.com
1(888) 833-2844
22 Communication & Reporting System
Integrated Through SafeRock’s ScrtyX™ Client Portal & Mobile App SafeRock has developed a purpose-built, dual-interface Web Portal and Mobile
App system—ScrtyX™—that transforms static security
coverage into a transparent, data-driven, and fully interactive operations environment. This system is engineered to align directly with all requirements outlined in this RFP for communication, responsiveness, and accountability, while offering Nevada County a future-ready platform for scalable, multi-departmental engagement.

SafeRock’s ScrtyX™ Client Portal & Mobile App
Real-Time Visibility & Oversight at All Levels
Through the ScrtyX Client Portal, Nevada County is granted up to 33 custom login credentials—allocated across departments site managers, contract liaisons, and executives—ensuring role-specific visibility into the followin g in real time:

This interface provides Nevada County stakeholders with total operational transparency—with dashboards accessible securely via web browser or mobile device.

Live guard deployment status per facility•
Tour tracking and time stamps (arrival, breaks, patrol scans, shift departure)• Daily Activity Reports (DARs) uploaded live with narrative, officer ID, timestamps, and photos• Special Incident Reports (SIRs) flagged and escalated instantly to designated recipients• Post analytics such as incident frequency, report response time, and absence metrics.• Guard card/license verification and officer credentials per assigned post• 23 Special Event & Emergency Response Deployment Plan
SafeRock Security has developed a structured, real-time response framework to meet the varying demands of Nevada County’s event-based and emergency coverage requests. Our tiered readiness model ensures we can respond withi n 2 hours, 24 hours, or 72
hours depending on notice provided — with no disruption to fixed post operations. 2-Hour Emergency Response Capability
SafeRock maintains an actively monitored, geo-referenced on-call security roster comprised of BSIS-licensed and background-cleared

officers who reside within 60 minutes of Nevada County’s jurisdictional boundaries. When an urgent need arises:

We maintain sufficient staffing redundancy to meet this window even during weekends, holidays, or evenings, with a minimum of 3 standby officers per shift cycle allocated for emergency deployments. 24-Hour Advance Requests
With 24 hours' notice, SafeRock activates our Rapid Response Coverage Plan through the Staf
fing Coordinator. This includes:

Our 24/7 Dispatch Officer is immediately alerted through our internal dispatch queue.
•
Officers receive push notifications through our ScrtyX mobile platform.• Shift acceptance and estimated arrival times are digitally confirmed and communicated to County contacts.
•
Armed or unarmed personnel are deployed based on incident type, location, and risk profile.
•
Officer tour tracking and incident logging begins upon check-in.• Confirming assignment details (site, hours, scope, risk level)• Assigning cross-trained personnel from our regional deployment team• Ensuring officers are briefed on post orders, equipped, and travel-ready• Coordinating site walk-throughs or virtual briefings if needed• Sending confirmation of readiness and roster to the County• 72-Hour Scheduled Events
For events or temporary coverage requests with 72+ hours’ notice (e.g., public hearings, community events, overflow shelter staf
fing), SafeRock treats these as planned
deployments and incorporates:

Technology and Reporting Integration
All temporary deployment staff are issued SafeRock cell phones with ScrtyX mobile access, ensuring:

Reliability Across All Timeframes
Whether for emergency response (2-hour), next-day supplemental coverage, or scheduled public events, SafeRock maintains the infrastructure, personnel, and

processes to deploy rapidly, responsibly, and compliantly — without compromising our fixed post staffing obligations. Our event readiness and on-call response model ensures the County has a reliable partner for both planned and unforeseen security needs.

Supervisor site planning and operational brief•
Review of access control, evacuation routes, and parking/security logistics• Alignment with County department contacts (e.g., Facilities, Public Works)• Scalable staffing based on estimated crowd size, time, and security profile• Inclusion of backup staff if multi-day shifts or high-attendance scenarios are expected• Real-time GPS tracking from assignment check-in to completion• Incident reporting, DARs/SIRs, and images submitted in real-time• Immediate communication access with Dispatch and Operations Manager• 24 SafeRock’s technology-forward approach to security operations ensures that every Nevada County post is equipped with an integrated ecosystem of communication, reporting, and compliance tools. Each assigned officer will be issued an iPhone 15 or newer, preloaded with the ScrtyX™ mobile app for real-time reporting, GPS-tracked patrol logs, incident escalation, and two-way messaging with dispatch and County stakeholders. Motorola two-way radios will provide encrypted, interference-free voice communication between guards, supervisors, and the command center—especially critical at multi-guard sites or during emergency responses. At high-risk or sensitive sites such as behavioral health or social services locations, officers will also be equipped with Halo live-streaming body cameras, providing secure, on-demand footage review and direct situational visibility for command personnel.

To reinforce post readiness and accountability, SafeRock will deploy tablets at key sites (e.g., Crown Point, Brighton Greens) to serve as HR and training kiosks. These devices will facilitate biometric clock-in/out, access to the Axess Academy Virtual Training Portal, and on-site policy acknowledgments. All systems—body cams, radios, smartphones, and tablets—are fully integrated into our proprietary ScrtyX™ platform, allowing County personnel to access guard activity logs, incident reports, and shift compliance in real time. This consolidated infrastructure enables precise, transparent, and field-connected operations—ensuring Nevada County receives a security program backed by modern command capabilities and stakeholder-aligned data access. 25 Corporate HQ
SafeRock Analytics and Dispatch Analysis
Center, 1st Floor
•
Project Management, HR and Operations
Offices, 2nd Floor
•
Corporate (C-Suite and Executive) Offices
and Strategic Conference Round Table
Conference Room, 3rd Floor
•
SafeRock
26 At SafeRock, our commitment to long-term continuity and workforce retention begins at the point of selection. We view the onboarding process not as a transactional HR function but as the first operational layer of risk mitigation and service cohesion. To ensure a high-functioning, agile, and mission-aligned security team, we implement a structured battery of behavioral, personality, and background screening tools during the recruitment cycle. This rigorous front-end process is designed to build cohesive teams capable of frictionless communication and consistent field performance—minimizing operational drift and maximizing coverage efficiency.

As a foundational service principle, SafeRock deploys a dual-platform approach to candidate vetting—utilizing two out of three of our strategic partners: Verified Credentials, Accurate.com, and First Advantage, based on job classification, risk tier, and City of Salinas’s preferences. Each platform covers distinct dimensions of background verification—ranging from criminal and employment history to digital behavior and drug screening—ensuring comprehensive oversight with no critical blind spots.

To complement this, we implement two of the following three behavioral profiling tools—MBTI, Predictive Index (PI), or Berke Assessment— tailored to the specific role (e.g., CSO, Supervisor) and team composition. These tools evaluate temperament, cognitive agility, and stress- response profiles to ensure optimal functional fit within supervisory structures and field teams. This selection architecture allows SafeRock to construct operational units that are not only technically qualified but also behaviorally synchronized—driving service consistency, stakeholder trust, and long-term workforce retention.

Insightful Data Driven Personnel Decision Making
Reinforced by tangible insights through SafeRock's Pre-Employment Due Diligence, Oversight and Quality Assurance Framework MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) – Behavioral and Temperament Alignment Assesses personality profiles to match temperament with CSO role demands• Identifies candidates best suited for solo deployment, high-stress response, or community facing ass ignments or AOR's.•
Supports team dynamic optimization, ensuring CSOs are assigned to supervisors that complement behavioral strengths• Enhances emotional intelligence awareness, a core component of de-escalation and public interaction• Used to flag high-conflict or emotionally reactive profiles during hiring consideration• Provides managers with predictive insights into how officers will perform under pressure or in isolation• PI Behavioral Assessment (Predictive Index) and Berke Assessment The Predictive Index: A data-driven cognitive and behavioral tool that forecasts how candidates behave under stress, follow instructions, or handle routine decision-making. Ideal for evaluating fit for structured, command-chain environments like security posts. Generates easy-to-understand reports that guide supervisors in placement and coaching
•
Berke Assessment: Testing specifically for security logic, surveillance recall, report writing accuracy, and observation skills Results can be used to benchmark candidates against high-performers or contract KPIs •
Verified Credentials – Comprehensive Background Screening Conducts criminal history checks across federal, state, and county databases• V
erifies employment history, job title accuracy, and professional references• Screens for education credential authentiCounty•
Drug ScreeningProvides lab-based testing (including 5-panel, 10-panel, and DOT-compliant panels)• Provides motor vehicle record (MVR) checks for CSOs operating County-branded vehicles• Supports compliance with LASD background requirements•
Custom screening packages tailored to public safety and high-trust environments• Automated flagging of inconsistencies or disqualifying information for SafeRock HR review• Accurate.com – Supplementary Digital Oversight & Social Risk Monitoring Performs real-time social media screening for indicators of bias, aggression, or policy violations• Pre-employment and random testing programs for ongoing workforce monitoring• Integrates with SafeRock’
s applicant tracking system for seamless pre-hire compliance documentation• Cross-references candidate data to detect identity fraud or application inconsistencies• Offers continuous monitoring options, notifying SafeRock of post-hire red flags (e.g., criminal activity)• Enhances transparency and provides an audit trail for all personnel background activity• Enables a dual-verification model, adding redundancy to SafeRock’s due diligence protocol• FADV (First Advantage) – Deep-Level Background Check Suite Rapid drug testing, hair testing, saliva testing, and DOT-compliant panels• Of
fers international criminal background checks, useful for applicants with travel/work histories abroad• Verifies civil litigation history, including restraining orders and workplace harassment cases• Real-time database flagging for watchlists, sanctions, and global compliance registers• Integrates easily with onboarding platforms and is commonly used in law enforcement-adjacent roles• 27 JASON HERNANDEZ
SafeRock
Proposed Position: Unarmed Security Of ficer – Eric Rood Administrative Center
Proposed Assignment: Entry/Exit Control, Public Reception, Patrol, I Incident Reporting
A vailability: Full-T ime, Monday through Friday (8:00 AM – 5:00 PM) Languages: English (Fluent), Spanish (Conversational)
Summary of Qualifications
A seasoned, reliable, and professional BSIS-licensed Security Of ficer with over 6 years of continuous experience in public sector security . Proven ability to manage fixed post assignments at government buildings, perform daily access control procedures, and engage with the public in a respectful, service-oriented manner . Demonstrated excellence in reporting, verbal communication, and conflict de-escalation. T echnologically proficient with GPS-tracked tour logging and incident report documentation via digital platforms.

Licensing & Certifications
Professional Experience
SafeRock, Inc.

Lead Unarmed Of ficer – County Admin & Community Centers (Placer County Contract) April 2021 – Present | Roseville, CA
Assigned to a fixed post at Placer County’ s Human Services and Building Department.

Conducted entry/exit screening for staf f, contractors, and members of the public.

Logged all building activity and foot traf fic through DARs using ScrtyX platform.

Conducted perimeter walk-throughs and reported facility safety issues (e.g., unsecured doors, loitering).

Assisted with wayfinding and acted as the first point of contact for visitors.

Responded to behavioral incidents and engaged in verbal de-escalation while maintaining composure.

Coordinated with County employees to support fire drills and emergency evacuations.

Supervised temporary guards and trained new hires on SafeRock post order protocols.

Omni Protective Services
Security Of ficer – County Utility Y ard & DPW Of fice
August 2018 – March 2021 | Auburn, CA
Unarmed of ficer at a County-owned transportation facility with public-facing utility of fice.

Monitored parking areas and pedestrian entrances via security camera feed.

Logged vehicle movements, vendor check-ins, and deliveries.

Communicated suspicious activity and incidents to County contact and local law enforcement when required.

Participated in monthly site safety inspections and logged fire exit compliance reports.

T echnology & Equipment Proficiency
Professional Attributes
BSIS Guard Registration (Active)•
Reg. No: 192877 – Exp. 03/2026•
CPR / First Aid / AED Certified (American Red Cross) – Expires: 06/2026• California BSIS Mandatory Skills T raining for Security Guards• Modules A–D (40 hours) – Completed at Allied T raining Institute• FEMA ICS-100 and ICS-200 Certified (Emergency Preparedness for Public Facilities)• Axess Academy Certifications (SafeRock Internal T raining)• Cultural Sensitivity & Empathy in Government Settings•
Customer Service and V isitor Engagement in Public Buildings• V erbal De-escalation and Incident Communication•
Radio Protocol and T our Logging•
Report W riting: DARs and SIRs in ScrtyX Portal•
ScrtyX Platform: Live GPS tracking, DAR/SIR submission, messaging• T wo-W ay Radio (UHF/VHF): Channel management, post-to-post coordination• Patrol T ools: Mobile tour wand, mobile panic button, incident cameras• Microsoft Excel / W ord / Outlook: Report documentation, incident summaries• Punctual, observant, and detail-oriented•
Strong interpersonal skills and de-escalation tactics•
Maintains a calm demeanor under pressure•
Impeccable uniform and presentation standards•
Responsive to County staf f instructions and safety directives• 28 Axxess Academy
SafeRock
Intentional, Data Insight Driven and Preventative Training Model.

Axxess Academy, Modern Security Guard Services.

Initial and Ongoing Training, Development and Implementation Framework On-Going Foundational Baseline Training Schedule
Quarterly Refreshers and Annual Recertifications
SafeRock mandates a recurring curriculum cadence to ensure skill retention, post-incident debrief integration, and legal compliance.

Quarterly Focused Modules: Based on field data and emerging County concerns (e.g., unhoused

engagement, protest safety, County code updates)
•
Annual Recertifications: Re-evaluation of tactical skills, ethics compliance, and field conduct• Digital Training Portal: CSOs access micro-learning modules via secure login with engagement tracking• Outcome- Data and Insight Based Training Model
All training is tied to performance benchmarks, feedback loops, and post-deployment assessments. Data from patrol behavior
, incident reports, and supervisor evaluations feed back into individual training files to dynamically adjust each CSO’s development trajectory.

Through this layered, adaptive, and data-driven approach, SafeRock ensures that each officer deployed in the City of Salinas is not only compliant — but confident, capable, and community-conscious from day one. 29 Axxess Academy
SafeRock
Intentional, Data Insight Driven and Preventative Training Model.

Axxess Academy, Modern Security Guard Services.

Initial and Ongoing Training, Development and Implementation Framework SafeRock integrates a continuous feedback loop into its training ecosystem by capturing internal Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) across field operations, incident reports, and supervisor evaluations. These data points—ranging from response times, community interactions, and report accuracy to behavioral observations—are aggregated and analyzed to identify patterns and potential vulnerabilities in service delivery. This intelligence feeds into a predictive training model, allowing us to proactively adjust curriculum content, frequency, and modality based on real-world friction points. The result is a dynamic and adaptive training pipeline that goes beyond compliance—ensuring CSOs are not only prepared for foreseeable scenarios but are strategically developed to deliver Preventative Security: a forward-leaning posture that mitigates incidents before they occur, strengthens public trust, and aligns with the City of Salinas’s goals for long-term community safety.

Operations
30 Attachment C – Section 5
SafeRock
Intentional, Data Insight Driven and Preventative Training Model.

Initial and Ongoing Retention and Development Framework SafeRock’s Incumbent Officer Retention Framework
Site Transition Interviews & Stakeholder Alignment
Our transition process begins with Phase 1 onboarding coordination, which includes meeting with each County site point of contact to discuss the current security personnel assigned to their facility . During these meetings, we identify:

This candid, site-specific input ensures SafeRock’s staffing model aligns directly with County expectations. Any incumbent officer identified by the County as preferred for retention will be offered continued employment by SafeRock, and will receive a minimum $0.25/hour wage increase, medical telehealth coverage, and access to our Attendance-Based Scheduled Pay Increase Program.

These benefits reflect our commitment to both continuity and talent uplift.

Officers the County prefers to retain•
Officers they are indifferent to•
Officers they prefer to replace or rotate out•
I. One-on-One Incumbent Interviews
To support a fair and thorough retention process, SafeRock will conduct structured one-on-one interviews with every incumbent of
ficer considered for continuation under our contract. These interviews are conducted by both the Staffing Coordinator and Operations Manager and are used to Review site performance and attendance records, Evaluate attitude, professionalism, and feedback from County personnel and assess the officer’s interest in remaining on post and joining SafeRock These interviews are used not only for vetting, but also to foster trust, set expectations, and reinforce our culture of accountability and excellence.

II. Initial Site Specific and SafeRock Mandated Training & Immersive Cultural Alignment Once selected, retained officers are enrolled in a customized onboarding program that integrates SafeRock’s service standards and County-specific requirements.

This includes:

This phase ensures that even returning guards are fully reoriented to the SafeRock way of serving—with professionalism, empathy, and operational precision.

Completion of Axess Academy refresher training tailored to County facility protocols• Uniform issuance and grooming standard briefings•
Systems training, including ScrtyX portal use for reporting and incident logging• Post Order review, communication expectations, and de-escalation reinforcement• III. Recognition of Tenure & Structured Advancement
We recognize that retained incumbent officers often bring valuable institutional knowledge.

For that reason, SafeRock ensures that:

This approach not only uplifts retained staf
f, but also reduces turnover, increases engagement, and maintains morale during the contract transition.

Retained officers receive a baseline pay raise (minimum $0.25/hour)• Of
ficers are eligible for tiered performance-based incentives after 90 days• A Structured Career Advancement Plan is made available, including eligibility for supervisory training tracks, post leadership rotations, and cross-site certifications
•
Mentorship & Performance Support
Retained officers will be assigned a Field Supervisor Mentor during the first 30 days to Monitor shift performance and reporting quality
, Provide feedback and coaching based on SafeRock and County expectations and Serve as an escalation point for clarification, support, or intervention This additional layer of support helps retained officers successfully adapt to SafeRock’s structure while meeting the high service standards expected by Nevada County.

Strategic Continuity, Elevated Standards
SafeRock’s Incumbent Officer Retention Program is designed to honor the continuity that benefits the County while elevating the performance and conditions of of
ficers retained. With structured pay increases, benefits access, targeted training, and active performance mentorship, this plan ensures that retained personnel are not only preserved—but enhanced. 31 www.SafeRockSecurity.com | 1(888)833-2844
Global Insights, Local Presence.

Section 6
Company-Wide Staff Retention Plan & Benefits Offering
Company-Wide Retention & Benefits Framework
At SafeRock, we view retention not as a metric—but as a strategic imperative. Our national employee retention strategy is anchored by three core pillars:
compensation trajectory
, career development, and employee well-being. High-performing project management based contract specific teams are built through sustained investment in people, culture, and upward mobility. Our staff retention model is structured to promote long-term engagement, career development, and work-life balance—resulting in consistently high post reliability and stakeholder satisfaction across all contracts. Through structured incentives, training pipelines, and a values-based culture, we maintain one of the strongest retention rates among privat e security firms operating in California.

SafeRock
Competitive Wages & Structured Wage Progression
We offer clearly defined wage progression plans tied to tenure, attendance, and performance milestones. Key elements include:

Attendance-Based Scheduled Pay Increase Program: Officers receive automatic raises at 90-, 180-, and 365-day milestones, tied to punctuality and zero-discipline records. •
Post-Differentiated Pay Tiers: Officers assigned to behavioral health, overnight shifts, or armed posts receive site-specific premium differentials. •
Annual wage reviews are conducted to ensure alignment with local living wage benchmarks and County expectations.
•
Health & Wellness Benefits
Flexible, accessible benefits designed to support both physical and mental health, including:

These of
ferings are extended to full-time and many part-time personnel after a defined probationary period.

Telehealth Medical Coverage (no-cost virtual primary care consultations)• Mental Health First Aid Support Line (available 24/7)•
Paid Sick Leave in compliance with state and local ordinances• Preventive care incentives (e.g., fitness stipends, wellness bonuses for non-smokers or milestone checkups)
•
Advancement Pathways Through Axess Academy™
Our proprietary Axess Academy™ platform serves as the backbone of career development at SafeRock, of
fering:

Each training completion is logged to the officer’s digital file and used as part of quarterly advancement reviews. All courses are available on-demand, and training completions contribute to promotion eligibility and wage increases.

Monthly training modules (de-escalation, report writing, customer engagement)• Site-specific onboarding for every new assignment•
Certification tracks for officers to become supervisors, trainers, or field mentors• Leadership development series for promotion-eligible personnel• Complete mandated BSIS and post-specific refreshers•
Earn certifications in de-escalation, trauma-informed response, and technology- based patrol reporting
•
Recognition, Retention Incentives & Culture Building
SafeRock prioritizes team cohesion and morale through:

Monthly Recognition Spotlights (site-based, performance-based awards), Referral Bonus Program for re cruiting cleared and credentialed peers and
Loyalty Bonuses for officers surpassing 12- and 24-month milestones. These tools create a sense of belonging and allow every officer to be seen, acknowledged, and rewarded for sustained excellence.

Field Support and Supervisor Engagement
Officers are never left unsupported. SafeRock employs a Field Engagement Model that ensures:
our data driven, tangible and proven model enhances of
ficer morale, minimizes burnout, and increases post tenure stability.

A Retention Ecosystem That Powers Performance and Supports the Mission Our retention approach is not reactive—it’s designed from the inside out. By combining economic incentives, structured growth, and a culture of mutual respect, SafeRock ensures Nevada County receives not just guards—but committed, reliable public safety professionals prepared to serve long-term.

Weekly Supervisor Check-ins for all active sites•
Rapid feedback resolution through real-time ScrtyX logs• Emergency debrief support after high-impact incidents (e.g., overdoses, escalations)• Incident stress response guidance and personal outreach by the Operations Manager• 32 Professional qualifications and experience
www.SafeRockSecurity.com
1(888) 833-2844
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
Protecting your Sensitive Information is a Foundation Principal of Our Approach to Modern Security Assurance of NPPI Protection and HIPAA Adherence
At SafeRock, protecting sensitive information, including Non-Public Personal Information (NPPI) and Personal Health Information (PHI), is a core priority
. Our comprehensive framework is designed to instill confidence in City of Salinas by exceeding industry standards, safeguarding data integrity, and ensuring regulatory compliance at every level of our operations.

Safeguarding NPPI: SafeRock ensures the secure handling and protection of NPPI through a robust system of governance, training, and technology:

Adherence to HIPAA Standards: SafeRock adheres strictly to HIPAA regulations, ensuring all PHI is handled with the highest degree of care and security:

Commitment to City of Salinas
SafeRock’s approach is rooted in trust and transparency. By implementing these stringent safeguards, we ensure that the City of Salinas ’
s sensitive information remains secure and its regulatory obligations are met without compromise. Our integrated systems, continuous training, and real-time reporting provide the assurance you need to confidently entrust us with this critical responsibility.

At SafeRock, protecting the privacy and security of WeHo ’s facilities, employees, and community is more than a requirement—it’s a promise we uphold with every action we take.

Data Access Controls: Only authorized personnel with verified roles can access sensitive information, using multi-factor authentication and role-based access systems. •
Encryption Standards: All NPPI is encrypted during storage and transmission to prevent unauthorized access.• Incident Response: Our 24/7 monitoring system immediately detects and responds to potential breaches, ensuring resolution within 24 hours.
•
Employee Training: Staff undergo mandatory biannual training on NPPI handling, phishing prevention, and incident reporting, reinforcing vigilance and accountability. •
Privacy Safeguards: Access to PHI is strictly limited to personnel with a legitimate need, with a “minimum necessary” standard applied to all data interactions.
•
Technical Protections: Communications involving PHI are conducted through encrypted channels, and systems are protected by firewalls, intrusion detection, and routine backups. •
Compliance and Audits: Quarterly internal audits and annual risk assessments proactively identify and mitigate vulnerabilities, ensuring continued adherence to HIPAA standards. •
Cultural and Situational Sensitivity Training
At SafeRock, we recognize that cultural and situational sensitivity is critical to delivering effective and respectful security services. Our training program is designed to equip of ficers with the skills and awareness needed to
navigate diverse environments, engage with empathy, and respond appropriately to complex situations. This ensures that every interaction upholds the values of WeHo and fosters trust within the community.

Commitment to Excellence and Accountability
SafeRock integrates cultural and situational sensitivity training into its core training program, with mandatory refreshers conducted annually. Our approach is proactive and dynamic, incorporating feedback from the communities we serve to continuously refine and enhance training content. All training records are meticulously maintained and available for review, ensuring transparency and compliance with the County's expectations.

By prioritizing cultural competence and situational awareness, SafeRock’s officers are empowered to build positive relationships, resolve conflicts effectively, and create a safe and inclusive environment for all members of the City of Salinas.

Sensitivity training is an integral part of our mission to serve mindfully with stewardship, respect, empathy, and professionalism.
33 Operations Framework
www.SafeRockSecurity.com
1(888) 833-2844
City of Salinas, California
Unarmed Security Services
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
SafeRock’s Operations Framework is engineered to deliver reliable, accountable, and scalable community safety services in direct alignment with the City of Salinas’s vision and LASD’s operational standards. Our model emphasizes precision execution, proactive oversight, and real-time adaptability—ensuring every Community Safety Officer (CSO) deployed operates within a structured chain of command, supported by advanced technology, continuous training, and KPI-driven supervision. From dispatch protocols and patrol routing to incident reporting and escalation pathways, each element of our operations is designed to reduce friction, enhance transparency, and provide measurable impact. This framework not only ensures field readiness and accountability but also strengthens interagency integration and public trust across all stakeholder groups.

Strategic Overview
In alignment with the City of Salinas’s objective to enhance public safety through non-sworn, unarmed personnel, SafeRock’
s service model is intentionally designed to address the most frequent non-emergency calls with precision, preparedness, and partnership. Understanding the nature of community-reported incidents—ranging from property crimes and quality-of-life disturbances to mental health-related concerns—is essential to deploying a responsive and effective Community Safety Officer (CSO) force. Our approach is built on data-driven deployment, proactive engagement, and strict adherence to LASD policy frameworks, ensuring seamless operational integration while providing timely and compassionate response to the most common service needs throughout the County.

Common Non-Emergency Calls in Nevada
Nevada experiences a high rate of property crimes, with a crime rate of 71 per 1,000 residents, placing it among the highest in the nation. The most frequent non-emergency calls include:

SafeRock's Alignment with LASD Policies
SafeRock is committed to aligning with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) policies to ensure cohesive and ef
fective public safety services:

SafeRock's Approach to Non-Emergency Calls
SafeRock's Community Safety Officers (CSOs) are trained to handle a variety of non-emergency situations, providing timely and ef
fective responses:

By integrating these practices, SafeRock aims to enhance public safety in Nevada, ensuring that non-emergency calls are addressed promptly and in alignment with LASD policies.

Theft and Larceny: Incidents such as shoplifting, pickpocketing, and theft from vehicles are prevalent, particularly in commercial areas like the 8900 block of Santa Monica Boulevard. ◦
Vandalism: Reports of graffiti and property damage are common in both residential and commercial zones.◦ Noise Complaints: Frequent in entertainment districts, especially during late-night hours.◦ Loitering and Trespassing: Often associated with unhoused individuals or unauthorized gatherings in public spaces.◦ Mental Health Crises: Calls involving individuals experiencing mental health issues, where no immediate threat is present.◦ Vehicle-Related Issues: Non-injury traffic accidents, parking disputes, and abandoned vehicles.◦ Community Policing: Emphasizing proactive engagement and building trust within the community, mirroring LASD's focus on transparency and community relations.
◦
Mental Health Response: Collaborating with LASD's Mental Evaluation Team (MET) to provide appropriate responses to
mental health-related calls, ensuring individuals receive the necessary support. ◦
Use of Force Policies: Adhering to LASD's guidelines on the use of force, prioritizing de-escalation techniques and ensuring accountability.
◦
Non-Emergency Reporting: Utilizing systems like the Sheriff's Online Reporting Tracking System (SORTS) to handle non- emergency incidents efficiently.
◦
De-Escalation Techniques: CSOs are equipped with skills to defuse potentially volatile situations, reducing the need for law enforcement intervention on non-emergency centric tasks and 911 inquiries. ◦
Community Engagement: Building relationships with residents and businesses to foster a sense of safety and cooperation.◦ Reporting and Documentation: Accurately documenting incidents and coordinating with LASD for situations requiring further action.
◦
Resource Referral: Connecting individuals, especially those experiencing homelessness or mental health issues, with appropriate services and support systems.
◦
34 Transient and Unhoused Intervention Protocol
Ensuring Safe and Respectful Interactions that Drive Results SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
SafeRock’s proven Transient Intervention Protocol and concepts serve as a comprehensive guide for addressing the transient unhoused population. By embracing empathy, respect, and safety, staff can contribute to a positive and supportive community environment.

Continuous training and improvement ensure that engagement strategies remain safe, effective, compliant and compassionate.

Procedures for Engagement

1. Identification and Observation: Identify
individuals who may need assistance.

Observe behavior from a distance
before approaching.

2. Initial Approach: Greet individuals
politely and introduce yourself. Inquire
about their well-being and ask if they
require assistance.

3. Providing Information: Offer information
on available services. Clearly
communicate any relevant policies
regarding site access.

4. Referral to Support Services: If
appropriate, guide individuals to local
support services. Encourage
connection with community resources.

5. Safety Measures: Always prioritize
safety, especially in situations involving
substance use or mental health
concerns. Seek support from trained
professionals when needed.

Key Principles
35 Gaining voluntary compliance
SafeRock Security employs a proactive and collaborative approach to gaining voluntary compliance from park visitors and addressing security concerns peacefully. Our approach emphasizes communication, education, and conflict resolution techniques to encourage positive behavior and foster a safe and welcoming environment. Our approach emphasized intentional communication and ongoing emotional intelligence training (EQ) to keep up with the evolving landscape of modern security needs.

Emotional intelligence (EI) training is an essential component of SafeRock Security's approach to effectively managing interactions with park visitors and addressing security concerns.

SafeRock Security provides comprehensive training on the concept of emotional intelligence, emphasizing its importance in interpersonal communication, conflict resolution, and effective leadership. Officers learn about the core components of emotional intelligence, including self- awareness, self-regulation, empathy, social skills, and emotional management.

Our training program focuses on helping officers develop self-awareness by recognizing their own emotions, triggers, and biases. Through reflective exercises, role-playing scenarios, and feedback sessions, officers learn to identify their emotional responses and how they impact their interactions with others. SafeRock Security emphasizes the importance of empathy in understanding the perspectives and emotions of visitors. Officers receive training in active listening techniques, perspective-taking, and non-verbal communication to enhance their empathy and build rapport with diverse individuals and communities.

Emotional intelligence training includes strategies for stress management and resilience- building to help officers cope with challenging situations and maintain composure under pressure. Officers learn techniques for self-regulation, such as deep breathing exercises, mindfulness practices, and cognitive reframing, to manage stress and maintain focus during patrols. Training equips officers with effective conflict resolution and de-escalation skills to defuse tense situations and prevent escalation. Officers learn to recognize early signs of conflict, respond calmly to aggression or hostility, and use empathy and active listening to address underlying emotions and concerns.

SafeRock Security emphasizes cultural sensitivity and diversity awareness as integral components of emotional intelligence. Officers receive training in recognizing and respecting cultural differences, avoiding stereotypes, and adapting their communication style to effectively engage with individuals from diverse backgrounds.

By integrating specialized emotional intelligence training into our overall training program, SafeRock Security ensures that officers are equipped with the interpersonal skills and emotional resilience necessary to effectively manage interactions with park visitors, gain voluntary compliance and address security concerns, and promote a safe and inclusive environment within County parks.

SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
Understanding
Emotional
Intelligence
Enhancing Empathy
and Social Skills
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
Developing Self
Awareness
Stress Management
and Resilience
Cultural Sensitivity
Training
36 SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
SafeRock
Incident Report
37 SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
SafeRock
Incident Report
SafeRock
Incident Report
38 SafeRock
Daily Activity Report
D.A.R
39 SafeRock
Incident Report
Time Log
SafeRock
40 SafeRock
Our commitment to delivering exceptional security services hinges on our dedication to regular site inspections. These inspections serve as our fundamental mechanism for evaluating security officers' performance, ensuring adherence to protocols, and upholding the highest standards of service quality. By conducting thorough and consistent site inspections, we proactively address challenges, enhance operations, and provide clients with the peace of mind they deserve.

Frequency and Planning
Performance Evaluation
Incident Response Assessment
Documentation and Reporting
Equipment and Technology Utilization
Interaction with Management and Clients
Documentation and Reporting
Continuous Improvement Driven by Insights
Our commitment to regular site inspections reaffirms our intention towards maintaining the highest standards of security service delivery. By continuously evaluating our security officers' performance, we ensure that our operations are fine-tuned, effective, and always aligned with our mission to provide unparalleled security solutions.

Scheduled Inspections: predetermined schedule for regular site inspections, ensuring that all sites are assessed systematically with uniform metrics.
•
Unannounced Visits: unannounced inspections to gain unbiased insights into day-to-day operations and readiness.• Adherence to Protocols: Evaluate security officers' adherence to established security protocols, guidelines, and standard operating procedures and compliance.
•
Interaction and Communication: Assess officers' ability to interact professionally with visitors, staff, and each other, maintaining a positive image and ef
fective communication.
•
Effective Incident Handling: Evaluate how security officers respond to simulated incidents, measuring their ability to manage emergencies and maintain composure.
•
De-escalation Skills: Gauge officers' aptitude for de-escalating potentially volatile situations and resolving conflicts peacefully.• Incident Reports: Review incident reports for accuracy, completeness, and alignment with the actual events.• Daily Logs: Assess the accuracy of daily activity logs, verifying that observations, patrols, and interactions are accurately recorded.• Equipment Maintenance: Inspect security equipment for functionality and cleanliness, ensuring proper maintenance.• Technology Utilization: Evaluate officers' proficiency in utilizing technology, such as surveillance systems, alarms, and communication devices.
•
Professionalism: Assess the professionalism of security officers when interacting with management, clients, and visitors.• Client Satisfaction: Gather feedback from clients about their interactions with security officers, assessing their overall satisfaction index and experience.
•
Incident Reports: Review incident reports for accuracy, completeness, and alignment with the actual events.• Daily Logs: Assess the accuracy of daily activity logs, verifying that observations, patrols, and interactions are accurately recorded.• Identifying Gaps: Use inspection findings to identify areas of improvement in security officer performance, procedures, and training.• Training Needs: Determine training needs based on inspection results, addressing any gaps in skills and knowledge.• Benefits of Regular Site Inspections•
Quality Assurance: Regular inspections ensure that security officers consistently deliver high-quality services in line with protocols.• Operational Excellence: Inspections uncover opportunities to enhance operational efficiency, contributing to a safer and more secure environment.
•
Proactive Problem-Solving: Detect potential issues before they escalate, allowing for timely resolution and risk mitigation.• Client Satisfaction: Consistent service quality boosts client confidence and fosters long-term relationships.• Professional Development: Insights gained from inspections inform training programs, fostering continuous growth among staff.• Regular Site Inspections: Ensuring Performance Excellence and Service Quality Quality Assurance and Auditing Overview
41 SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
42 SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
SafeRock
PPO No. 121921
Recommendations
SafeRock
Equipment Uniform and Branding
Designated Equipment Catalog
Motorola Walkie Talkies•
I-phone X•
Dashboard V
ehicle Cameras•
Body Cameras•
Stream light LED Flashlight•
Upon contract award, SafeRock will initiate a uniform and equipment catalog review in collaboration with designated County stakeholders to ensure all deployed personnel
project a professional, approachable, and mission-aligned presence. This process will involve curating a selection of uniforms and gear that reflect both SafeRock’s brand
standards and the City of Salinas’s desired public image —emphasizing visibility, accessibility, and community
trust. Final selections will balance operational functionality with visual cohesion, ensuring officers are equipped to serve with both authority and approachability.
43 44

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 15 of 29 31 ATTACHMENT 2 – SIGNATURE PAGE / VERIFICATION
OF L

ICENSURE
By submission of a proposal, Proposer attests to having possession of a valid private patrol operator license issued by the State of California. Such license authorizes a Contractor to contract to perform the type of work required by the specifications. Should the Contractor fail to provide below the number of Contractor’s State of California License and City of Salinas, Patrol Service Permit, the City may reject this proposal.

Proposer:

BY:

TITLE:

MAILING ADDRESS:

(Ci
ty) (State) (Zip)
TELEPHONE NUMBER:

ST
ATE OF CALIFORNIA LICENSE NO.:
(Private Patrol Operators License)

PROPOSER’S Signature Date

~End of Attachment 2~

Revise per Addendum No. 1
May 30, 2025

SafeRock
Megan Zadda
CEO
2570 N First St. 2nd FLoor
San Jose CA 95131
805-285-8557
#121921
Mozhgan Tabibada 05/28/2025

CITY OF SALINAS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: UNIFORM SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Page 14 of 29 31 ATTACH
MENT 1 – PRICE SCHEDULE
The following rate shall be provided:

Su
pervisor Unarmed Cost
Pay Rate $ /hr.

Billing Rate $ /hr.

Overtime Rate$ /hr.

Sec
urity Officer
Pay Rate $ /hr.

Billing Rate $ /hr.

Overtime Rate$ /hr.

Pat
rol Rate (including vehicle)
Pay Rate $ /hr.

Billing Rate $ /hr.

Overtime Rate$ /hr.

Ala
rm Response
Response Rate$ /hr.

COMM

UNICATION EQUIPMENT
2-Way Radio Rate $ /hr.

Cellular Phone Rate $ /hr.

Cell/Radio $ /hr.

~E
nd of Attachment 1~

20.00 28.12

42.18 18.00

27.12 40.68

20.00 29.12

43.68 50.00

0.00 0.00

0.00