Agenda packet — Seaside City Council, July 20, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

A G E N D A

CITY OF SEASIDE REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR 440 HARCOURT AVE (COUNCIL CHAMBER) AGENCY TO THE Thursday, July 20, 2023
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 5:00 PM
___________________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE: The City Council will hold its public meetings in person, with a virtual option for public participation based on availability. The City of Seaside utilizes Zoom tele-conferencing technology for virtual public participation; however, we make no representation or warranty of any kind, regarding the adequacy, reliability, or availability of the use of this platform in this manner. Participation by members of public through this means is at their own risk. ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

VIRTUAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. To view this meeting: Please click on the following link to the City of Seaside YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofSeasideCalifornia

2. To participate in this meeting: Using the Zoom application on your smart phone, laptop, tablet or desktop and click on this link: https://ci-seaside-ca-us.zoom.us/j/81936832059 WEBINAR ID: 819 3683 2059

3. To participate by phone: Please call (669) 900-9128
Enter the meeting ID 819 3683 2059 when prompted. There is no participate code – press the pound sign # after the recording prompts you.

4. To make public comment, the following options are available:

Before the Meeting via Email: Written comments can be emailed to [email protected] Include the following subject line: “Public Comment Item #___” (insert the agenda item number relevant to your comment). Written comments must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.

During the Meeting via Oral Comments: When the Chair calls for public comment, attendees can queue to speak with the “Raise Hand” feature. On the Zoom application, click the “Raise Hand” button. On the phone, press *9.

IN PERSON PARTICIPATION INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the public participating in person and wishing to address the City Council may approach the podium when the Chair calls for public comment.

Packet Page 1
City Council REGULAR Meeting July 20, 2023 5:00 PM Agenda Page 2

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL – ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Ian N. Oglesby
David R. Pacheco
Alexis Garcia-Arrazola
Rita Burks
Alex Miller
Mayor/Chair
Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair
Council/Agency Member
Council/Agency Member
Council/Agency Member

3. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. REVIEW OF AGENDA
If there are any items that arose after the 72-hour posting deadline, this is the point in the meeting where a vote may be taken to add the item to the agenda. (A 2/3-majority vote is required).

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City of Seaside, but not on this agenda, may do so during the Public Comment period for up to three (3) minutes. Public Comments for "Presentations" on this agenda are also taken at this time; comments on specific agenda items are heard under that item. For the public record, please state your name.

6. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
This is a time specifically set aside for representatives of public agencies to make brief comments of general interest to the City Council and the community.

7. PRESENTATIONS
A. UPCOMING CITYWIDE EVENTS & COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
(RECREATION SUPERVISOR, KEE HYON HIGGINS)

8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. APPROVE MINUTES FROM JULY 6, 2023
RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes as presented in the agenda packet.

B. APPROVE AND FILE CITY CHECKS
RECOMMENDATION: Approve and file the accounts payable and wired payments made during the period of January 28, 2023 through March 10, 2023, including the payroll and benefits checks, direct deposits, and wired payments related to the pay Packet Page 2
City Council REGULAR Meeting July 20, 2023 5:00 PM Agenda Page 3 period ending February 3, 2023, February 17, 2023 and March 3, 2023. Total Accounts Payable and Payroll for the above referenced period is $6,746,036.23.

C. APPROVE AND FILE SUCCESSOR AGENCY CHECKS
RECOMMENDATION: Approve and file the accounts payable and wired payments made during the period of January 28, 2023 through March 10, 2023 including the payroll and benefits checks, direct deposits and wired payments related to the pay period ending Feruary 3, 2023, February 17, 2023, and March 3, 2023. Total Accounts Payable and Payroll for the above referenced period is $2,175.71.

D. APPROVE MAYOR'S YOUTH FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUEST FROM THE VILLAGE PROJECT/THE MAE C. JOHNSON EDUCATION & CULTURAL

ENRICHMENT ACADEMY FOR COST ASSOCIATED WITH A THREE-DAY "SUSTAINABLE ADVENTURES: EXPLORING NATIONAL PARKS" CAMPING

TRIP FOR YOUTH
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a request from the Village Project for a donation of $3,000.00 from the Mayor's Youth Fund for the costs associated with their Mae C. Johnson Education & Cultural Enrichment Academy.

E. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A ONE-YEAR MAINTENANCE

SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CITY PARKS WITH HOPE SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $137,046.00
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with HOPE Services to assist with maintenance in City parks and public areas for an amount not to exceed $137,046.00.

F. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING $51,500.00 FOR THE PURCHASE OF A

TURF SWEEPER FROM EKA FOR USE BY THE MAINTENANCE AND

UTILITIES DIVISION
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving $51,500.00 from the General Fund for the purchase of a turf sweeper and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement with EKA for an amount not to exceed $51,500.00 for the turf sweeper, and direct the Finance Department to incorporate these changes in the fiscal year 2023/2024 budget.

9. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GRANT APPLICATION FOR

REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS

ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY FOR

MONTEREY COUNTY FOR THE COE AVENUE AND GENERAL JIM MOORE

BOULEVARD AND SEASIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL INTERSECTION

IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving the grant application to obtain Regional Surface Transportation Program funds administered by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) for the design of the Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard and Seaside Middle School Intersection Improvements Packet Page 3
City Council REGULAR Meeting July 20, 2023 5:00 PM Agenda Page 4 Project.

B. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

FOR THE CITY HALL AND LIBRARY PARKING LOT REPAVING PROJECT, APPROPRIATING $73,785.00 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE

PROJECT, AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO MONTEREY PENINSULA ENGINEERING, INC. FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $519,365.00 AND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST INCLUDING
CONTINGENCY OF $597,270.00
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving the plans and specifications for the City Hall and Library Parking Lot Repaving Project; appropriating $73,785.00 from the General Fund to the project; awarding a construction contract to Monterey Peninsula Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $519,365.00; establishing a 15% construction contingency for a total construction amount not to exceed of $597,270.00.

10. COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS
A. NEW COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS

1. Discuss and consider that if an application to paint a curb is approved based on public benefit and safety, the fee will be refunded if the City Council approves the request as per public benefit and safety to residents and community. If the Council denies the application, it will remain with the City. (Pacheco)

2. Discuss and consider that if the application is approved by the City Council for purposes of public benefit and safety, there will be no fee assessed to the applicant for the painting of the red curb. (Pacheco)

3. Discuss traffic mitigation Monterey Road. (Miller)
B. FOLLOW UP ON PREVIOUS REQUESTS

1. Lobbyist RFP

2. Canadian geese waste solutions

11. CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER, CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR

COMMENTS AND REPORTS ON COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
This is a time specifically set aside for members of the City Council, the City Manager and City Attorney to make brief comments of general interest to the community and report on committee assignments.

12. CLOSED SESSION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq., the City Council and Successor Agency to Redevelopment Agency may adjourn to a Closed Session to consider specific matters dealing with litigation, certain personnel matters, property negotiations or to confer with the City Attorney. Public comments on these items are taken after being read by the City Attorney. For the public record, please state your name.

Packet Page 4
City Council REGULAR Meeting July 20, 2023 5:00 PM Agenda Page 5 A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9- POTENTIAL LITIGATION (2 MATTERS)

13. ADJOURNMENT
Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting:

AUGUST 3, 2023
5:00 PM
The City of Seaside is committed to providing accessible facilities and accommodating people with disabilities in all of its services programs and activities. If special considerations are needed by any person to fully participate in this meeting, contact the City Clerk at 899-6707 no fewer than two business days prior to the meeting to allow reasonable arrangements. Agendas are posted at:
http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/129/City-Council-Committee-Agendas Agenda-related writings or documents provided during public meetings are available for public inspection during the meeting or from the office of the City Clerk. This agenda is posted in compliance with California Governor Newsom's Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-33-20.

Packet Page 5

DRAFT MINUTES

CITY OF SEASIDE REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL/ SUCCESSOR 440 HARCOURT AVE
AGENCY TO THE Thursday, July 6, 2023
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 5:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair Oglesby called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL – ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
PRESENT: Burks, Garcia-Arrazola, Miller, Oglesby, Pacheco ABSENT: None

3. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Moment of silence held in place of invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council/Agency Member Miller.

4. REVIEW OF AGENDA
No changes.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mescal St. Resident, Shelley, Christine Hoyer, Bobby Maxwell, Linda Cunningham, Pastor Ronald Britt, Alvin Edwards, Chandra LeBouf, Rachel Christofferson, Ray Riordan

6. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
Alvin Edwards, Director, Division 1 – Monterey Peninsula Water Management District reported that the rates are increasing this month. AquaFresh injection season is complete. Along with M1W, Seaside has 3,000 acre feet of water stored underground.

7. PRESENTATIONS
A. CITYWIDE EVENTS AND COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS (RECREATION

DIRECTOR, DAN MEEWIS)
Director Meewis provided a presentation and reviewed the following upcoming events and responded to questions from the Council:
• Seaside Certified Farmers Market – Every Thursday – Laguna Grande Park 3-7pm • City’s Teen Center and Seaside’s Classic Car Club presents Youth Summer Jam – July 8 – Seaside Teen Center 1-4pm
Packet Page 6
Thursday, July 6, 2023 City Council REGULAR Meeting Page 2 • Sunday Blues in the Park 2023 – July 9, July 16, July 23, July 30, August 6 – Laguna Grande Park 1-4:30pm
• Monterey Peninsula Obon Festival – July 9 – Monterey Peninsula Buddhist Temple 12-5pm
• Free Webinar: Organics Recycling on the Monterey Peninsula – July 13 at 6pm • Kick Vape Away Kickball Tournament – July 16 – Cutino Park 12-3pm • Country Western Dance – July 20 – Oldemeyer Center 12:30-3pm • Hot Cars & Cool Nights –July 28, August 25, September 29 – Broadway Ave 4- 8pm
• Porsche Monterey Classic – August 14 – Porsche Monterey (1781 Del Monte) 4- 8pm
• Consours d’Lemons – August 19 – Seaside City Hall
• Concorso Italiano – August 19 - Bayonet & Blackhorse Golf Course 10am-3pm • Exotics on Broadway – August 19 – Broadway Ave 1-6pm
• CalFresh information
• Family & Community Support Program – (831) 899-6852
• Friends of Seaside Parks Association Park Clean Ups – July 8, July 15, July 22, July 29
• Monterey Bay F.C. Home Games –July 8, July 15, July 29 Follow us on social media: facebook.com/SeasideCA, Instagram: @cityofseaside, Twitter: @City_of_Seaside
B. PRESENTATION OF APRIL AND MAY 2023 HOUSES OF THE MONTH (NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAY RIORDAN)
NIC Commissioner Mr. Riordan provided the April and May 2023 House of the Month.

The Mayor awarded plaques to April’s winner, Rachel Christofferson at 1542 Waring Street, and May’s winner, Dianne Nielson at 1296 Lowell St. There were no questions from the Council.

C. SEASIDE POLICE AND FIRE "CHAMP" YOUTH CADET PROGRAM (FIRE

CHIEF MARY GUTIERREZ AND POLICE COMMANDER JUSTIN PASCONE ) Chief Gutierrez and Commander Pascone provided the presentation and answered questions from the Council.

8. CONSENT AGENDA
On motion by Council Member Miller and second by Council Member Garcia-Arrazola and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

RESULT: 5-0-0-0
AYES: Burks, Garcia-Arrazola, Miller, Oglesby, Pacheco
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Packet Page 7
Thursday, July 6, 2023 City Council REGULAR Meeting Page 3 A. APPROVE MINUTES FROM JUNE 15, 2023
ACTION: Approved
B. APPROVE AND FILE CITY CHECKS
ACTION: Approved
C. APPROVE AND FILE SUCCESSOR AGENCY CHECKS
ACTION: Approved
D. APPROVE PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JULY AS BEBE MOORE

CAMPBELL NATIONAL MINORITY MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH ACTION: Approved
E. APPROVE PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JULY 28, 2023, NATIONAL

BUFFALO SOLDIERS DAY
ACTION: Approved
F. APPROVE A FEE WAIVER REQUEST FROM PAJARO VALLEY OHLONE COUNCIL FOR THEIR "RED DRESS DAY - HONORING INDIGENOUS
WOMEN" EVENT ON MAY 04, 2024
ACTION: Approved
G. APPROVE A FEE WAIVER FROM CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

MONTEREY BAY'S DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK FOR THE USE OF

THE LAGUNA GRANDE HALL AND KITCHEN FOR THEIR MASTER OF
SOCIAL WORK, NEW STUDENT ORIENTATION ON AUGUST 21, 2023 ACTION: Approved
H. APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (ESCA) QUARTERLY REPORT
ACTION: Approved
I. APPROVE APPOINTMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION,

COMMUNITY SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSION

ON JOBS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND BUSINESSES IN SEASIDE
ACTION: Approved & Appointed Parvaneh Keivanfar to the Environmental Commission, Gerald Daniel to the Commission on Jobs, Opportunities & Businesses in Seaside, and Kalyn Foliaki to the Community Safety Advisory Commission.

J. APPROVE A REQUEST FROM BLACK LEADERS AND ALLIES

COLLABORATIVE FOR SPONSORSHIP IN THE AMOUNT OF FIFTEEN
Packet Page 8
Thursday, July 6, 2023 City Council REGULAR Meeting Page 4 HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1,500.00), AND USE THE CITY LOGO ON

PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS FOR THE MONTEREY COUNTY RACE
RELATIONS SUMMIT MEETING ON JULY 14, 2023 TO BE HELD AT

EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL IN SEASIDE
ACTION: Approved
K. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACTOR SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA PREMIER RESTORATION FOR ON-CALL

PROPERTY CLEAN-UP SERVICES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$75,000.00 AND TOTAL PROJECT COST, INCLUDING A 10%
CONGINGENCY OF $82,500.00
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-108
L. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENT #3 TO INCREASE THE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES CONTRACT BY AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000.00

WITH KIMLEY-HORN TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CAMPUS TOWN

PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR A CUMULATIVE CONTRACT
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $555,200.00 TO BE REIMBURSED BY

DEVELOPER OR PAID FOR OUT OF THE FORT ORD REUSE AUTHORITY

DEMOLITION BONDS
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-109
M. ADOPT A RESOLUTION CLARIFYING REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE

ALLOCATION OF WATER FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-110
N. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYORS OF SEASIDE AND

OAXACA DE JUAREZ MEXICO TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEEMENT TO

APPROVE THE CITY OF SEASIDE DONATION OF SURPLUS SEASIDE FIRE

AND POLICE EQUIPMENT TO OAXACA DE JUAREZ FIRE DEPARTMENT,

AND HAVE A MUTUAL EXCHANGE OF TRAINING
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-111

9. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NORTH FREMONT STREET

SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURE PROJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
Recreation Director Dan Meewis provided the presentation and responded to questions from Council. There were no public comments.

Packet Page 9
Thursday, July 6, 2023 City Council REGULAR Meeting Page 5 On motion by Council Member Garcia-Arrazola and second by Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Pacheco and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to adopt a resolution approving the North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

RESULT: 5-0-0-0
AYES: Burks, Garcia-Arrazola, Miller, Oglesby, Pacheco
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-112

10. COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS
A. NEW COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS

1. Application fee for the red and blue curves to be refunded if the city council approves the request based on public safety and public benefit. (Pacheco)

2. Requesting fees associated with the paintings of the rich and blue curves be waived if it is approved by the mayor and city council based on public benefit and safety. (Pacheco)

3. Discussion about mitigating traffic on Monterey Road (Miller) B. FOLLOW UP ON PREVIOUS REQUESTS
City Manager Fontes provided the Council with an update on the lobbyist RFP and a request to raise the Monterey Bay Football Club flag at City Hall.

11. CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER, CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR COMMENTS

AND REPORTS ON COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Reports provided.

12. CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Damon read the closed session items and did not anticipate a read out.

There were no comments from the public on closed session items.

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.8
Property: The Property Commonly Referred to as Campus Town (Property bounded by Highway 1/1st Avenue, 7th Avenue, Lightfighter/Colonel Durham Street, and Gigling)
Agency Negotiators: City Manager, et. al.

Negotiating Parties: Danny Bakewell Jr., et. al. and City of Seaside Under Negotiation: Purchase and Sale Agreement Terms
Packet Page 10
Thursday, July 6, 2023 City Council REGULAR Meeting Page 6 B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.8
Property: A portion of APN 031-151-055 located to the east of General Jim Moore Blvd./Generally South of Lightfighter commonly referred to as the Presidio of Monterey Fire Station
Agency Negotiators: City Manager, et. al.

Negotiating Parties: US Army and City of Seaside
Under Negotiation: price, terms of payment or both
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9- POTENTIAL LITIGATION (2 MATTERS)
Potential Litigation (2 Matters)
Upon return from closed session, City Attorney Damon did not have any announcements to report.

13. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
_________________________ _________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
Packet Page 11

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.B.

TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Loreene Bermudez-Onate, Accountant II
DATE: July 20, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE AND FILE CITY CHECKS

RECOMMENDATION
Approve and file the accounts payable and wired payments made during the period of January 28, 2023 through March 10, 2023, including the payroll and benefits checks, direct deposits, and wired payments related to the pay period ending February 3, 2023, February 17, 2023 and March 3, 2023. Total Accounts Payable and Payroll for the above referenced period is $6,746,036.23.

BACKGROUND
In accordance with Government Code Section 37208, at each City Council meeting, the Council is provided a listing of the payroll and general checks issued since the last report so that the checks can be inspected and confirmed. Each purchase has been reviewed and approved by the department making the purchase at the time of procurement. The invoices have been reviewed by the Finance Department prior to payment to ensure that they conform to the approved budget.

Therefore, in accordance with Government Code Section 37208, the above referenced and linked list of checks conforms to the approved budget and has been paid. These checks are submitted to the City Council for inspection and confirmation.

A description of the checks and wires exceeding $10,000.00 are as follows:
• $57,711.29 to Action Council of Monterey County for Prof. services for the Community Social Services Grant for the periods of October - December 2022. • $13,731.34 to BFS Landscape Architects for Prof. services for Lincoln Cunningham Park design for the periods of 1/30/23-2/26/23. • $15,509.79 to California-American Water for Water consumption for multiple City Packet Page 12

Item No. 8.B. Page 2 of 4
of Seaside service addresses. Billing period of 12/20/2022-1/24/2023. Service addresses include city buildings, parks, fire hydrants, irrigation stations, and city affordable housing.
• $53,278.52 to City of Monterey for IGSA Fiscal Year 2019-2020 ICRP TrueUp/Rate Adjustment OMC Maintenance. • $14,744.63 to City of Salinas for Fire Department Personnel course held on the period of 10/31/22-11/04/22.
• $25,000.00 to Community Partnership for Youth for Community social services grant reimbursement request for the period 01/01/23-03/31/23. • $184,227.00 to County of Monterey for Payment for FY2022/23 Quarter 4 - Dispatch Services.
• $20,662.50 to Ellis Investigations Law Corporation for Professional services for the periods of February-March 2023.
• $40,260.91 to Enterprise FM Trust for Monthly payment for (13) leased City vehicles.
• $46,756.80 to Fermin M. Gonzales for Broadway Walk of Fame concrete plaques design, materials, and installation.
• $33,695.50 to Harris & Associates, Inc. for SCSD professional services for Fremont, Broadway, & Ortiz project during September 2022; Pavement Rehabilition Services for the periods of August & September 2022. • $44,320.96 to Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates for Prof. contract/audit services for the period of Quarter 3-2022.
• $61,127.04 to Hope Services for Maintenance services for the periods of July 2022-January 2023.
• $21,816.51 to Huntington Public Capital Corp. for Quarterly lease contract payment for Vactor and Patch Trucks for the period of 2/8/23-5/7/23. • $10,677.08 to Huntington Public Capital Corp. for Lease contract payment for the Energy Project at City Hall, City Library, and Fire Department locations. • $42,513.46 to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Professional services for the Broadway Streets Corridor project through September 30, 2022. • $64,712.57 to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Professional services for the Broadway Streets Corridor project through October 31, 2022. • $225,676.77 to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Professional services for the Broadway Streets Corridor project through January 31, 2023; Campust Town services for the periods of March 2022-January 2023; Professional engineering support services for the periods of October-November 2022. • $13,949.00 to Monterey Bay Division, LLC for Membership dues for calendar year 2023.
• $29,207.78 to Marina Coast Water District for Recycled water meter services for the period of December 2022.
• $14,932.17 to Monterey Co. Convention & Visitor's Bureau for TID (Tourism Improvement District) remittance for the reporting period of December 2022 for the 13 Seaside motels/hotels.
• $14,047.11 to Monterey Co. Convention & Visitor's Bureau for TID (Tourism Packet Page 13

Item No. 8.B. Page 3 of 4
Improvement District) remittance for the reporting period of January 2023 for the 13 Seaside motels/hotels.
• $78,437.00 to Monterey One Water for Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
• $255,032.25 to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for Prof. services for Noche Buena/Mingo Sotrm Drain Improvements project for the periods of December 2022 & January 2023.
• $36,123.07 to Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt District for Seaside Basin Watermaster services for the periods of April 2022-December 2022. • $61,472.43 to PG&E for Collective accts for street lights, highway lighting, park lights and city office buildings. Service for the period of 12/22/22-1/24/23. • $68,407.89 to PG&E for Collective accts for street lights, highway lighting, park lights and city office buildings. Service for the statement period of March 2023. • $16,557.75 to RRM Design Group for Professional architectural and engineering services for the Fire Station 2 project through January 20, 2023. • $20,279.14 to RRM Design Group for Professional architectural and engineering services for the Fire Station 2 project through February 28, 2023. • $32,325.00 to Schaaf & Wheeler, Consulting Civil Engineer for Professional engineering support services for the period of January 2023; Watermaster Plan project services for the period of January 2023.
• $10,287.19 to Sturdy Oil Company for 2,660 gallons of regular gas (ethanol) delivered to the public works department on 1/24/2023.
• $18,885.36 to The Sohagi Law Group for Professional legal services for Petrovich Development & KB Bakewell Venture for the period of December 2022. • $10,346.83 to The Sohagi Law Group for Professional legal services for Petrovich Development & KB Bakewell Venture for the period of January 2023. • $60,848.36 to U.S. Bank-Calcard for City of Seaside purchase card transactions for the billing period of December 2022.
• $54,058.56 to U.S. Bank-Calcard for City of Seaside purchase card transactions for the billing period of January 2023.
• $11,072.50 to Vista Environmental Consulting, Inc. for Campus Town Hazardous Materials for the period of 6/24/22-8/31/22.
• $16,000.00 to Voler Strategic Advisors, Inc. for Strategic Communications Support services for the periods of January-February 2023. • $49,206.33 to Wallace Group for November & December 2022 services for Fire Station Upgrades; November 2022 services for Ellis Park Improvements; December 2022 services for Campus Town Water Augmentation Study; September 2022 services for Del Monte Manor Park Sewer Upgrades. • $10,858.99 to Wallace Group for October 2022 & January 2023 services for Fremont, Broadway & Ortiz Sewer Upgrade Improvements; January 2023 services for Campus Town Water Augmentation Study; October 2022 & January 2023 services for Camps Town Plan Check.
• $16,963.80 to Whitson Engineers for January 2023 services for Ellis Park Improvements; November 2022 services for Cutino Park Improvements.

Packet Page 14

Item No. 8.B. Page 4 of 4
• $20,200.20 to Whitson Engineers for September 2022, December 2022 & January 2023 services for City Hall, Library & Police Deparment parking lot improvement; September 2022, October 2022 & December 2022 services for Del Monte Manor LID Project; January 2023 services for Cutino Park Improvements.

The Net Payroll and Payroll benefits total was $3,596,658.37.

The remaining checks, totaling $1,253,456.48, include payments to vendors for operating expenditures.

The check report is available on the City's website here:
https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/194/Check-Draft-Register

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no additional fiscal impacts.

ATTACHMENTS
None
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 15

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.C.

TO: Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seaside FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Loreene Bermudez-Onate, Accountant II
DATE: July 20, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE AND FILE SUCCESSOR AGENCY CHECKS

RECOMMENDATION
Approve and file the accounts payable and wired payments made during the period of January 28, 2023 through March 10, 2023 including the payroll and benefits checks, direct deposits and wired payments related to the pay period ending February 3, 2023, February 17, 2023, and March 3, 2023. Total Accounts Payable and Payroll for the above referenced period is $2,175.71.

BACKGROUND
In accordance with Government Code Section 37208, at each City Council meeting the Council is provided a listing of the payroll and general checks issued since the last report so that it can inspect and confirm these checks. Each purchase has been reviewed and approved by the department making the purchase at the time of procurement. The invoice has been reviewed by the Finance Department prior to payment to ensure that it conforms to the approved budget.

Therefore, in accordance with Government Code Section 37208, the above referenced, and linked list of checks conforms to the approved budget and has been paid. These checks are submitted to the City Council for inspection and confirmation.

A description of the checks and wires exceeding $10,000 are as follows:
• No checks exceeded $10,000.

The Checks report is available on the City's website here:
https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/194/Check-Draft-Register
Packet Page 16

Item No. 8.C. Page 2 of 2

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no additional fiscal impacts.

ATTACHMENTS
None

Packet Page 17

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.D.

TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Dan Meewis, Recreation Director
DATE: July 20, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE MAYOR'S YOUTH FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUEST FROM THE VILLAGE PROJECT/THE MAE C. JOHNSON

EDUCATION & CULTURAL ENRICHMENT ACADEMY FOR COST
ASSOCIATED WITH A THREE-DAY "SUSTAINABLE
ADVENTURES: EXPLORING NATIONAL PARKS" CAMPING TRIP

FOR YOUTH

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a request from the Village Project for a donation of $3,000.00 from the Mayor's Youth Fund for the costs associated with their Mae C. Johnson Education & Cultural Enrichment Academy.

BACKGROUND
On behalf of the Mae C. Johnson Education & Cultural Enrichment Academy, the Village Project is requesting a $3,000.00 donation from the Mayor’s Youth Fund to help cover the costs associated with a three-day "Sustainable Adventures: Exploring National Parks" camping trip for their youth.

The Mae C. Johnson Education & Cultural Enrichment Academy will be having a sixweek program for at-risk youth. The children will be engaged in daily art activities and have one-on-one reading time to improve their reading skills. During the program, the children will have the opportunity to participate in the Sustainable Adventures:

Exploring National Parks program. This program is a three-day camping trip designed to educate children about the importance of sustainability, conservation, and the preservation of national parks. This immersive program aims to install a love for nature while teaching children the need to protect our environment for future generations.

During the camping trip, children will engage in a range of educational activities and experiences that promote an understanding of sustainability. Children will learn about Packet Page 18

Item No. 8.D. Page 2 of 2
the significance of national parks, their biodiversity, and the need to conserve these precious ecosystems.

The Mae C. Johnson Education & Cultural Enrichment Academy is sponsored by the Village Project and the funds distributed to the Mae C. Johnson Education & Cultural Enrichment Academy will be handled through The Village Project. Based on the information provided, staff has determined that the application meets the requirements of the Mayor's Youth Fund Policy. The Village Project received their last donation at the July 21, 2022 City Council meeting. They submitted their 2022 Mayor's Youth Fund Closing Report within the 60 day time frame.

FISCAL IMPACT
This request would be funded by a donation from the Green Waste Recovery's donation to the Mayor's Youth Fund. The current balance is the Mayor's Youth Fund account (601-2106) is $29,349.43. If the City Council approves this request, the balance will decrease to $26,349.43. This is for fiscal year 2023/24.

In the event that all of the funds in the Mayor's Youth Fund become exhausted, staff will keep a file of all applications. Once Green Waste issues the next round of funding, all applications on file will be processed at the next available City Council meeting.

ATTACHMENTS

1. MYF Village Project- The Mae C. Johnson Education & Cultural Enrichment Academy - 2023

2. MYF Village Project- W9 2023

3. MYF Village Project- 501(c)(3)

4. MYF Closing Report - Village Project- The Mae C. Johnson Education & Cultural Enrichment Academy - 2022
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 19
Packet Page 20
Packet Page 21
Packet Page 22
Packet Page 23
Packet Page 24
Packet Page 25
Packet Page 26
Packet Page 27
Packet Page 28
Packet Page 29
Packet Page 30
Packet Page 31
Packet Page 32

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.E.

TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Nisha Patel, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Dave Fortune, Maintenance and Utilities Superintendent
DATE: July 20, 2023
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A ONE-YEAR

MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CITY PARKS WITH
HOPE SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $137,046.00

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with HOPE Services to assist with maintenance in City parks and public areas for an amount not to exceed $137,046.00.

BACKGROUND
HOPE Services (HOPE) is a local non-profit organization engaged in the training of persons with disabilities to enter the mainstream workforce. Since 2001, Hope Services has provided the City with public works maintenance assistance and has proven to be an invaluable asset. In turn, the City has provided experience and opportunities for persons with disabilities. HOPE maintains the City parks by removing trash, abating graffiti, opening, closing and cleaning restrooms and provides additional litter control on Coe Avenue, General Jim Moore Blvd., Monterey Road and alleyways.

There are twenty-three (23) parks and other public areas in the City that have benefited from the successful partnership with HOPE. It has allowed the City Parks staff to concentrate on beautification projects and maintenance and repair of the irrigation system and has reduced staff overtime.

The attached contract provides for four (4) workers and one (1) supervisor by HOPE to provide maintenance/cleanup tasks in and around public facilities. The HOPE crew is scheduled to work six and a half hours (6.5 hrs) per day from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Packet Page 33

Item No. 8.E. Page 2 of 2
with a half hour lunch break, Monday through Friday. The work performed by HOPE is under the direction of the City Maintenance and Utilities Superintendent. The core objective required to be performed by the Hope crew is the cleaning of litter at each park once a week. HOPE’s supervisor is also responsible for tracking the amount of litter removed by the clean-up of parks as part of the required documentation for the city’s Storm Water Management Program.

Staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a one-year Maintenance Services Agreement with HOPE Services for an amount not to exceed $137,046.00.

FISCAL IMPACT
The HOPE fees are distributed from the following fund sources: Stormwater Fund (271) and Parks (100). Based on the time provided for each aspect of the work provided, each of these funds will be charged accordingly for a total agreement amount not to exceed $137,046.00.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Agreement
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 34
RESOLUTION NO. 23-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE CITY COUNCIL

AUTHORIZING A MAINTENANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH HOPE

SERVICES
WHEREAS, HOPE Services is a local non-profit organization engaged in the training of persons with disabilities to enter the mainstream workforce; and WHEREAS, the City of Seaside has maintained a successful partnership with HOPE Services for over twenty years; and
WHEREAS, HOPE Services would provide maintenance/clean-up tasks at each park location and public areas on a weekly basis, opening closing and cleaning the restrooms in addition to tracking the amount of litter removed by the clean-up of parks as part of the required documentation for the City Storm Water Management Program; and
WHEREAS, these services performed by Hope Services have reduced staff overtime and have allowed city staff to concentrate on beautification projects and maintenance and repair of the irrigation systems; and
WHEREAS, HOPE Services and the City have agreed to a one-year contract.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Seaside authorizes the City Manager to execute a maintenance service agreement with HOPE Services to perform park and public maintenance services for an amount not to exceed $137,046.00.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside, State of California, duly held on the 20th day of July 2023, by the following votes:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_______________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 35

Page 1 of 4 ends

City of Seaside

RESTATED AND AMENDED MAINTENANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT
OPTION YEAR EXTENSION 2023-2024
This Maintenance Services Agreement (“Agreement”) made the date last written below, is by and between the City of Seaside, a municipal corporation (“City”) and HOPE Services, a corporation (“HOPE”).

RECITALS
A. HOPE is engaged in the training of persons with disabilities to enter the mainstream workforce.

B. HOPE has offered to provide certain maintenance services to the City for a fee and the City desires to engage HOPE to provide such services to the City, all on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. Provisions of Services. HOPE agrees to perform certain maintenance tasks for the City that will generally consist of, but not limited to, trash and litter removal, cleaning and light maintenance of landscaping, streets, parks and other public areas.

2. Amount of Services. HOPE shall provide a work crew consisting of four maintenance workers and one supervisor to accomplish the assigned tasks referred to in paragraph 1, during the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Monday through Friday with .5 hour daily lunch break each week during the term of this Agreement (6.5 hour work day).

3. Holiday Schedule. The following holiday schedule in which HOPE Services and the City observe shall not be obligated to perform any services:

Independence Day Tuesday July 4, 2023
Labor Day Monday September 4, 2023
Thanksgiving Day Thursday November 23, 2023
Day after Thanksgiving Friday November 24, 2023
Christmas Eve Monday December 25, 2023
Christmas Holiday Tuesday December 26, 2023
New Year’s Day Monday January 1, 2024
Martin Luther King Day Monday January 15, 2024
President’s Day Monday February 19, 2024
Memorial Day Monday May 27, 2024
Juneteenth Wednesday June 19, 2024
Packet Page 36
Packet Page 37
Packet Page 38
Packet Page 39
Packet Page 40
Packet Page 41
Packet Page 42

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.F.

PURCHASE OF A TURF SWEEPER FROM EKA FOR USE BY THE

MAINTENANCE AND UTILITIES DIVISION

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving $51,500.00 from the General Fund for the purchase of a turf sweeper and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement with EKA for an amount not to exceed $51,500.00 for the turf sweeper, and direct the Finance Department to incorporate these changes in the fiscal year 2023/2024 budget.

BACKGROUND
The purpose of this item is for the City Council to consider approving $51,500.00 from the General Fund Balance for the purchase of a turf sweeper for use within the Maintenance and Utilities Division.

The Maintenance and Utilities Division is requesting to purchase a turf sweeper from EKA so that maintenance staff can clean up goose poop from the lawns at Laguna Grande Park and City Hall. The current 1985 turf sweeper, which is in need of replacement, is used to sweep the turf before events such as Blues in the Park and the Farmers Market just to name a few.

The City solicited a proposal to purchase the turf sweeper from EKA, a registered firm with GSA (Contract #GS-07f-085CA), a federal procurement system of which the City of Seaside is also a registered party. The prices shown include set up and delivery to the city. All applicable fees and taxes will be paid by the city to the State.

FISCAL IMPACT
Packet Page 43

Item No. 8.F. Page 2 of 2
If the City Council approves the purchase of the turf sweeper, the fiscal impact will be $51,500.00 from the General Fund to the subconsultant work account (100-8430-2073).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposal

2. Resolution
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 44
Customer Quote Date
6/26/2023
EKA Quote #
12080
Name / Address

CITY OF SEASIDE, CA
Adam Vick
[email protected]>
Delivery Address
Payment Terms
NET 30 DAYS
Quote valid until:
7/26/2023
F.O.B. terms
DEST
Dealer
Solicitation number CUST REQUEST
EKA Quote Contact
[email protected]
Contract Number

SEE BELOW
Total
Item / Description Qty Price Each Total
#48-500AF SMITHCO SWEEP STAR 48H FINGER REEL: Riding Self-Propelled Sweeper 48" Sweeping Width - FINGER REEL; Hydraulic drive w/ 18 hp, 2-Cylinder gasoline engine. Debris Hopper: Capacity - 1.75 cu.yd., Construction - 14 gauge steel formed panels, Dump - Hydraulic raise/lower debris hopper to dump height to 65" for easy disposal of debris.
1 48,646.70 48,646.70
#48-501 Hopper Dust Shield (Accessory Option for Smithco Sweep Star 48) 1 1,112.34 1,112.34 SETUP/INSTALLATION 1 1,667.37 1,667.37
QUOTED PRICE/TERMS ARE EQUAL TO GSA #GS-07F-085CA AND AFNAF CONTRACT #F41999-17-D-0011. NOTE: EKA DOES NOT COLLECT/PAY ANY STATE/LOCAL TAXES. ANY TAXES DUE IS THE CUSTOMERS
RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY DIRECT TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY.

Earle Kinlaw & Associates, Inc. [dba] EKA
DUNS: 075949644 SAM Unique Entity ID:DKRAJNL462K6
TIN:58-1328598 Cage Code:2Y851.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve your government business needs. $51,426.41 Packet Page 45
RESOLUTION NO. 23-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,500.00 FOR PURCHASE OF A NEW TURF SWEEPER FOR THE

MAINTENANCE AND UTILITIES DIVISION
WHEREAS, the Maintenance and Utilities Division is an essential function department for the City of Seaside that requires reliable equipment to function; and WHEREAS, the existing turf sweeper is 35 years old; and WHEREAS, the City is a registered party of GSA, a program of the federal procurement system; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 3.04.110 of the Seaside Municipal Code permits the use of cooperative procurement agreements; and
WHEREAS, the City received a proposal from EKA, a registered contractor with GSA, to purchase a turf sweeper; and
WHEREAS, EKA’s proposal is in the amount of $51,500.00; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Seaside adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with EKA for the purchase of a turf sweeper for an amount not to exceed $51,500.00; and NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Seaside directs the Finance Director to appropriate the funding from the General Fund to the subconsultant work account (100-8430-2073) and incorporate the change in the fiscal year 2023/2024 Budget
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Seaside City Council duly held on the 20th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
________________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 46

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 9.A.

TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Nisha Patel, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Leslie Llantero, Assistant Engineer
DATE: July 20, 2023
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GRANT APPLICATION

FOR REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM GRANT

FUNDS ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE TRANSPORTATION

AGENCY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY FOR THE COE AVENUE AND

GENERAL JIM MOORE BOULEVARD AND SEASIDE MIDDLE

SCHOOL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolution approving the grant application to obtain Regional Surface Transportation Program funds administered by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) for the design of the Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard and Seaside Middle School Intersection Improvements Project.

BACKGROUND
The Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project (Project) is an approved project in the Captial Improvement Program for fiscal year 2023/2024. The Project will upgrade two all-way stop controlled intersections, reduce the overall street width of General Jim Moore Boulevard, create safe passage for both pedestrians and bicycle riders on the adjacent multiuse path, and mitigate the amount of and severity of collisions.

In 2021, the intersections were evaluated as part of the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) study which provides a holistic approach to the consideration and evaluation of intersection control alternatives. Both Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard and Seaside Middle School entrance at Coe Avenue intersections were evaluated based upon life cycle costs, performance measures such as safety, delay, operations and maintenance, and initial capital costs. The study compared roundabouts to the existing Packet Page 47

Item No. 9.A. Page 2 of 3
all-way stop controlled intersections and determined that roundabouts will improve the intersections with regards to traffic and pedestrian safety and drastically reduce vehicle delays. In addition, the Seaside Marina Safe Walking and Biking to School Complete Streets Plan (Plan), approved by City Council, identified specific improvements around Seaside Middle School as important safe routes to school connections. These improvements include installing roundabouts along Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Blvd and Paralta Avenue, providing easier access for cyclists and pedestrians from Paralta Avenue, and creating separate bike lanes or trails. Consistent with the Plan, the Project will address the top community-identified safety concerns and barriers to children walking and biking to schools in the Project area; safety of intersections and crossing; and speed of traffic and amount of traffic.

The Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) grant application was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates and submitted to TAMC by the June 1, 2023 deadline. The grant application is requesting $955,000 for environmental review, public outreach, and design. The total Project cost is estimated at $4,379,000.00. Construction funding is estimated to cost $3,376,000. There is no required funding match. If the City is awarded grant funds from TAMC, staff will move forward with applications for construction funding from other grant funding sources, such as the Active Transportation Program, AB 2766 Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction Grant, and the Safe Streets for All Grant Program. Through a consultant, the City is preparing a Local Roadway Safety Plan, scheduled to be completed by this year, which allows the City to be eligible to apply for other funding opportunities as mentioned above.

The City Administrative Policy (Policy) indicates that grant applications equal to or in excess of $10,000.00 are required to be approved by the City Council. The Policy requires that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the filing of the application, certifying the project is consistent with the General Plan, certifying the applicant has sufficient funds available to operate and maintain the project, and appointing the City Manager as agent for the project.

The Project is consistent with the City General Plan. The goals in the General Plan which the Project satisfies include developing and maintaining a City circulation system that promotes safety and satisfies demand, and promotes the use of multi-modal transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian integration into the City's circulation system. Once constructed, the operation and maintenance of the roundabouts is approximately $2,000.00 per year, which would be funded through the Street Maintenance Account.

Staff recommends adopting a resolution approving the Regional Surface Transportation Program grant application for the Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard and Seaside Middle School Intersection Improvements Project.

FISCAL IMPACT
Packet Page 48

Item No. 9.A. Page 3 of 3
The City would only move forward with the design of the Project if grant funds are awarded from TAMC.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. TAMC RSTP Application

3. TAMC RSTP Appendix
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 49
RESOLUTION NO. 23-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

APPROVING APPLICATION OF REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS FOR THE COE AVENUE AND GENERAL JIM MOORE

BOULEVARD AND SEASIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard and Seaside Middle School Intersection Improvements Project (Project) is adopted in the fiscal year 2023/2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) annual budget; and WHEREAS, the Project will upgrade two all way stop controlled intersections, reduce the overall street width of General Jim Moore Boulevard, create safe passage for both pedestrians and bicycle riders on the adjacent multiuse path, and mitigate the amount of and severity of collisions; and
WHEREAS, in 2021, the intersections were evaluated as part of the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) study which determined that roundabouts would improve the intersections with regards to traffic and pedestrian safety and drastically reduce vehicle delay; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the Seaside Marina Safe Walking and Biking to School Complete Streets Plan approved by the City Council on June 16, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the goals in the General Plan which the Project satisfy include developing and maintaining a City circulation system that promotes safety and satisfies demand, and promotes the use of multi-modal transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian integration into the City's circulation system; and WHEREAS, the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) grant application, with no match funds required, was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and submitted to TAMC by the June 1, 2023 deadline; and Packet Page 50
WHEREAS, the total project cost estimate is $4,379,000.00 and the grant application request is for $955,000.00 for environmental review, public outreach, and design.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Seaside hereby authorizes the Regional Surface Transportation Program Grant Application for the Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard and Seaside Middle School Intersection Improvements Project and authorizes staff to submit to the Transportation Agency for Monterey County.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular City Council of the City of Seaside duly held on the 20th day of July, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

______________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 51
Grant Application Materials
Regional Surface Transportation Program Competitive Grants Applications due: June 1, 2023 – 12:00 PM via email to [email protected] Transportation Agency for Monterey County
55B Plaza Circle
Salinas, California 93901
Packet Page 52
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 2 of 27 ends

Purpose & Principles
The Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) was established by California State Statute utilizing Surface Transportation Program Funds that are identified in Section 133 of Title 23 of the United States Code. The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) distributes these funds to local agencies as part of its responsibilities as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Monterey County.

The purpose of the program is to provide funding to local jurisdictions for a wide variety of transportation planning and improvement projects, such as the research, planning, construction, improvement, maintenance, and operation of public streets and highways (and their related public facilities for non-motorized traffic), including the mitigation of their environmental effects. A full listing of eligible projects can be found in the Transportation Agency for Monterey County’s Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds.

In establishing the Regional Surface Transportation Program Competitive Grants program, the Transportation Agency is seeking to fund projects that advance the goals of the Transportation Agency Board. These include funding and delivering projects of regional significance that improve safety, provide maintenance for existing facilities, or support the development of a multimodal transportation network utilizing the principles of Complete Streets. Fair geographic balance in distributing the funds and the cost effectiveness of the proposed projects in meeting the program’s goals are also taken into consideration when awarding grant funds.

Instructions
(1) You must complete an application form for each project. All projects must submit an application, even if it has previously applied and received RSTP funding. (2) If your agency submits more than one project application, you must identify your highest priority project.
(3) You are responsible for completing all sections of the application form and attaching any relevant information. Your project application will only be scored based on the information that is provided in your application. Additional information will not be accepted after the deadline.
(4) Your project must pass the “Screening Criteria” section of this application form in order to qualify for funding.
(5) You should refer to the included RSTP Scoring Criteria when preparing the relevant section of your application. You are responsible for providing complete and accurate information in order to receive the highest points possible.

Packet Page 53
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 3 of 27 ends

(6) The deadline for applications is June 1, 2023 by 12:00 PM. All applications must be received by TAMC on this date. No postmarks or faxes will be accepted. No application forms or additional information will be accepted after this date. (7) For each application, you must submit one electronic PDF document. If you are submitting supplemental information, it must all be compiled into one PDF document.

Packet Page 54
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 4 of 27 ends

Screening Criteria
To qualify for RSTP funding, you must state how your project meets all of the following criteria:

A. Your project must be implemented within a 3-year timeframe. Please specify if your project will meet this deadline. Please note that after three years, your project will lose the funding if it has not yet been completed.

The proposed project will be implemented within 3 years: __X__ B. Your project must be consistent with a minimum of one of the local or regional plans listed below. Please check off the applicable plans:

Local General Plan: _____
Capital Improvement Program (CIP): __X__
Safe Routes to Schools Plan (SRTS): __X__
Active Transportation Plan: _____
Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP): _____
MST Service Improvement Plan: _____
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): _____
Approved Transportation Impact Study: _____
Other (please specify): _____
C. For intersection projects that increase capacity or make changes to the control type, the California Department of Transportation Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) must be completed or a commitment to completing the evaluation prior to receiving RSTP funds. Information can be found at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/trafficoperations/intersection-evaluation-control.

An ICE has been completed (include with grant application): __X__ An ICE will be completed prior to receiving grant funds: _____ D. For all projects, a pre-construction Before Study in alignment with stated project benefits must be completed or a commitment to complete as part of the project implementation. A sample Before-and-After Study can be found in Appendix D.

A pre-construction Before Study has been completed (include with grant application): __ __
A pre-construction Before Study will be completed as part of the project implementation (include in project completion report): __X__ Packet Page 55
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 5 of 27 ends

Section A: Project Information & Regional Significance
Project Title Sponsor / Lead Agency
Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore
Boulevard and Seaside Middle School
Intersection Improvements
City of Seaside
Contact Person Contact Information (address, phone, email) Leslie Llantero 440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
831.899.6832
[email protected]
Project Description (include Average Daily Traffic data – vehicle, bike & pedestrian, or transit passengers)
The Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard and Seaside Middle School Intersection Improvements project would improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular facilities along Coe Avenue including buffered bicycle lanes, roundabouts, non-contiguous sidewalks/multiuse path, crosswalk enhancements including an RRFB across Coe Ave to Seaside Middle School, and ADA ramp enhancements (see Appendix A – Project Map & Layout Plan). The site includes a major intersection at Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore, as well as the entrance to Seaside Middle School on Coe Avenue, approximately 280 feet west of General Jim Moore Blvd, at Paralta Avenue. The request for this RSTP grant is to fund the Environmental and Design phases of the project, and the City will pursue construction funding once the design is close to completion.

City of Seaside staff have witnessed an eleven-minute delay on General Jim Moore Boulevard in the peak morning commute for the southbound direction; this congestion is exacerbated by the amount of school drop-offs. General Jim Moore Boulevard is also an alternative route to Highway 1 for access to Seaside, Del Rey Oaks and Monterey. Peak hour video counts of pedestrians and bicycles were taken by IDAX Dara Solutions on May 30, 2019 on Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Blvd from 7:00 AM to 8:45 AM, and from 2:00 PM to 3:45 PM (see Appendix D – NDS Traffic Counts and Intersection Volume Summaries). The study found that there are approximately 4 bicycle riders and 3 pedestrians during the AM peak hour, and 16 bicycle riders and 5 pedestrians during the PM peak hour. A second study was completed on Tuesday, December 03, 2019. Peak hour video counts of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles were taken by National Data Services (NDS) from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. AM peak hour counts results are 2,152 vehicles, 2 bicycle riders, and 2 pedestrians; PM peak hour counts are 1,670 vehicles, 15 bicycle riders, and 5 pedestrians. Based on the results from both studies, the ADT values were estimated to be 160 bicycle riders and 50 pedestrians. The vehicle ADT value were calculated for the Major (North-South) and Minor (East-West) legs of the intersection: 19,340 vehicles and 8,580 vehicles, respectively.

During the 2019/2020 school year there were 827 students enrolled at Seaside Middle School, many of whom utilize the intersection at Coe and Paralta to get to school. Coe Avenue is also currently a designated bicycle route in the project area. Peak hour video Packet Page 56
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 6 of 27 ends

counts of pedestrians and bicycles were taken by IDAX Dara Solutions on May 30, 2019 on Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue from 7:00 AM to 8:45 AM, and from 2:00 PM to 3:45 PM. The study found that there are approximately 5 bicycle riders and 392 pedestrians during the AM peak hour, and 12 bicycle riders and 421 pedestrians during the PM peak hour. A second study was completed on Tuesday, December 03, 2019. Peak hour video counts of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles were taken by National Data Services (NDS) from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. AM peak hour counts results are 938 vehicles, 3 bicycle riders, and 303 pedestrians; PM peak hour counts are 362 vehicles, 1 bicycle rider, and 76 pedestrians. Based on the results from both studies, the ADT values were estimated to be 120 bicycle riders and 4,210 pedestrians. The vehicle ADT value were calculated for the Major (East-West) and Minor (North-South) legs of the intersection: 8,600 vehicles and 5,520 vehicles, respectively.

Is there a history of collisions or safety issues in the project area (pedestrian, bicycle, motorist) and how does the project address the issue?
While the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) records between 2017-2022 do not indicate any injury collisions, this may be attributed to the current lack of cyclist and pedestrian activity to and from the school. According to the Seaside and Marina Safe Walking and Biking to School: Complete Streets Plan, about 14% of students utilize active transportation and parents cite Safety of Intersections and Crossings and Speed of Traffic Along Route as major concerns for allowing their children to commute this way. This project will address both of these concerns in order to promote more active transportation users and create a better sense of safety for users of all ages and abilities.

Roundabouts reduce vehicle speed as vehicles approach the intersection, thereby also reducing the amount of vehicle to vehicle collisions and vehicle to pedestrian and cyclist conflicts. Furthermore, roundabouts mitigate crash severity by greatly reducing head-on and T-bone collisions. Given the amount of pedestrians, many of which are middle school attendees, at the Coe/Paralta intersection and the large amount of vehicular traffic at General Jim Moore/Coe, both intersections would clearly benefit from the vast reduction in conflict points as provided by a roundabout:

Packet Page 57
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 7 of 27 ends

A roundabout is ideal not only to address the traffic congestion at Paralta, specifically, it is also an ideal intersection treatment for school children. This is of particular importance as the Coe/Paralta intersection is the only north-south crossing that connects the majority of residences to Seaside Middle School (see Appendix C – Excerpts from Seaside and Marina Safe Walking and Biking to School: Complete Streets Plan). The crossing distances will be significantly shorter than existing and pedestrians only have to watch for traffic in one direction at a time. Drivers are also more likely to be looking in the direction of pedestrians, instead of up at signals or left while turning right. Overall pedestrians are 50-90% less likely to be involved in an injury crash at a roundabout than at a signalized intersection. At the Paralta and Coe intersection the predicted number of injury and fatalities for a signalized intersection is 0.6 / life cycle, whereas for a roundabout it is 0.25 / life cycle; this results in less than half the loss of life amount. The roundabout at the Paralta intersection would result in slightly more property-damage-only collisions, however the severity of crashes would be greatly reduced.

Based on the ADT’s the intersection at General Jim Moore Boulevard and Coe Avenue has substantially more vehicle and bike traffic, and these users would also greatly benefit from the installation of a roundabout. Motorists are typically 60-80% less likely to be involved in an injury crash at a roundabout than at a signalized intersection, and cyclists are usually 10-30% less likely. At the General Jim Moore and Coe intersection the predicted number of injury and fatalities for a signalized intersection is 1.8 / life cycle, whereas for a roundabout it is 1.6 / life cycle. The roundabout at the General Jim Moore intersection would result in 8 incidents of property-damage-only collisions as compared to 6 incidents at a traffic signal; once again these instances of collisions are minor, especially when compared to the cost of injury and fatality collisions.

Project Benefits (attach additional information if needed) Packet Page 58
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 8 of 27 ends

The Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard and Seaside Middle School Intersection Improvements project will upgrade two all way stop controlled intersections, reduce the overall street width of General Jim Moore, create safe passage for both pedestrians and bicycle riders on the adjacent multiuse path, and mitigate the amount and severity of collisions. When polled with a take home survey asking about children walking and biking to school, parents rated their top three concerns as: distance from home (81%), safety at intersections and crossings (57%), and speed of traffic along route (54%) (see Appendix C – Excerpts from Seaside and Marina Safe Walking and Biking to School: Complete Streets Plan).

While the roundabouts will not change the distance from residences to the school, it will greatly reduce the speed of vehicle along the route and provide enhanced pedestrian crossings.

While students would be the primary beneficiaries of the improvements, the project would also increase general pedestrian and bicycle use of these streets. Currently General Jim Moore has two travel lanes in each direction, along with left and right turn lanes, making the total street width at the intersection approximately 96’ to 106’. Northbound cyclists intending on turning left onto Coe Avenue must exit the designate bike lane to enter the right turn pocket and cross three travel lanes, or, along with pedestrians, they can use the 90’+ crosswalk. With the installation of a roundabout, however, bikes will travel with the slowed vehicles, rather than attempting to ride in front or beside quickly turning vehicles. Less capable or experienced riders will have the option to ride on the multiuse path. This project will enhance alternative modes of transportation by utilizing improvements that will slow down travel speeds, improving the comfort and safety of those traveling along or across the roadway.

It is expected that these improvements will transform the area into an active transportation friendly environment with a unified bicycle and pedestrian network. Based on the current roadway conditions and proposed improvements, it is expected that pedestrians and bicycling activity will double in the area following the project.

One of the major concerns for both intersection is that of delay; with school start and end times coalescing with commuter hours, drivers often experience intersection wait time upwards of ten minutes. With a traffic signal, an upgrade from the current all way stop condition, the traffic delays at General Jim Moore are 30 sec / vehicle and 34 sec / vehicle during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. After the installation of a roundabout, however, these delay times would be reduced to 15 sec / vehicle and 19 sec / vehicle.

Similarly, if the Coe/Paralta were upgraded to a signal the delay times would run at 8 sec / vehicle during the AM peak hour and 14 sec / vehicle during the PM peak hour. Roundabout delay times for the AM and PM peak hours would be 4 sec / vehicle and 8 sec / vehicle, respectively. Public comments on the project also illuminated city staff to the amount of illegal U-turns and lane crossing that happens during these peak hours. A roundabout would not only alleviate traffic wait times, it would also increase compliance with local traffic laws.

The installation of the Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Double Roundabout project would Packet Page 59
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 9 of 27 ends

alleviate traffic congestion dramatically ultimately leading to a reduction in the societal cost associated with lost person-hours and increasing livability in the region.

Though Eucalyptus Road (east leg of General Jim Moore intersection) is currently closed off to through traffic, future development is expected to generate additional traffic in the next 10 years. A roundabout at the General Jim Moore and Coe intersection would upgrade the deficient, existing infrastructure to accommodate future development as specified in the City of Seaside’s General Plan with less anticipated cost, delay, and collisions than a traffic signal.

It is clear the intersections at both General Jim Moore and Paralta along Coe Avenue need to be upgraded due to safety risks, traffic delays, expected future development, and poorly functioning infrastructure; it would most benefit the City of Seaside to do so with a roundabout.

Describe how your project links regional origin / destinations or serves regional travel Implementation of the Project will alleviate the traffic congestions for commuters who elect to use General Jim Moore Blvd to reach Seaside proper, Ryan Ranch business park via South Boundary Road, commercial businesses in Del Rey Oaks via 68, Cal State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) in Marina and the Department of Defense and military services.

The project incorporates Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) Bus Routes 74 and 12 and will integrate well with Seaside’s plans for development east of General Jim Moore which will include a mix of parks, recreation, employment, retail and services, and housing. MST operates their bus rapid transit along the General Jim Moore and Coe Avenue corridors, connecting low-income residents to job centers in Seaside, Monterey, Marina and Salinas.

Both of the existing MST stops in the project area will be protected in place. The future SURF! Busway that will provide bus rapid transit service on a dedicated right-of-way will provide affordable transit access between Seaside, Marina and Salinas.

Describe how your project benefits disadvantaged communities Seaside is the second-largest city in Monterey County, with a population of 32,085 in 2021. It is also a demographically young city, with 25% of its population under the age of 18. Seaside is the most ethnically diverse city in Monterey County: 43% of residents are Hispanic/Latino, 32% are white, 10% are Asian, and 7% are African American. According to census data, the majority of Seaside residents drive alone to work. Five percent of residents walk or bike to work, and 4% take public transportation. According to the Seaside & Marina Safe Walking & Biking to School: Complete Streets Plan, “Seaside residents grapple with high living costs, and each city houses disadvantaged populations as defined by the Health Disadvantaged Index and the CalEnviroScreen 3.0. One in seven Seaside residents lives in a disadvantaged neighborhood: one where 60% of households live in poverty, 17% of households lack access to a car, and 53% of people have no high school education.” Packet Page 60
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 10 of 27 ends

Seaside residents grapple with high living costs and houses disadvantaged populations as defined by the Health Places Index and the CalEnviroScreen 4.0. One in seven Seaside residents lives in a disadvantaged neighborhood: one where nearly 60% of households live in poverty, 11.8% of households lack access to a car, and 91% of people over the age of 25 have no high school education.

Seaside residents also have health struggles that could be helped by increased walking and bicycling especially for children and the African American community. In 2018, nearly half of all 5th graders in Seaside were overweight or obese. The City’s African American community is the largest in Monterey County, and disproportionately affected by heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. To address these serious health issues, the residents of Seaside need more places in the city where they can feel safe and comfortable walking and bicycling and they need community-based education and encouragement programming to help them incorporate active transportation in their daily lives.

The project includes two census tracts: Tract 141.07 to the north and Tract 139 to the south.

According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0 census tract 141.07 has a higher percentage of poverty than 55% of others in California and a housing burden more than 64% of others in California, while Tract has a higher percentage of poverty than 52% of others in California and a housing burden more than 88% of others in California. The people who live in this neighborhood face many barriers to overcoming poverty including linguistic isolation, limited or no access to an automobile and less than 38% of adults over the age of 25 have a Bachelor’s education. This project will provide these residents direct access to the services and programs needed to cope with their current situations and improve their lives and the lives of future generations.

This project will provide direct access from the disadvantaged neighborhoods to schools, housing, community and county services, and after school programs.

The City adopted the Seaside & Marina Safe Walking & Biking to School: Complete Streets Plan in February 2020 (Appendix C). The Plan identifies specific improvements around Seaside Middle School as important safe routes to school connections; these improvements include installing roundabouts along Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore and Paralta Avenue, providing easier access for cyclists and pedestrians from Paralta Ave, and creating a separated bike lane or trail. Consistent with the Plan, the Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard and Seaside Middle School Intersection Improvements project will address the top community-identified safety concerns and barriers to children walking and biking to schools in the project area: safety of intersections and crossings; speed of traffic and amount of traffic.

Seaside Middle School is a middle school which has recently changed to serve 7 th and 8th
graders, with an enrollment of 475 students, 85% of whom were eligible for Free and Reduced Price Meals (2021-22 California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) Fall 1). During the outreach and data collection effort for the Seaside & Marina Safe Walking & Biking to School: Complete Streets Plan in 2019/20, Seaside Middle School served 827 6th-8th graders, 89% of whom were eligible for Free and Reduced Price Meals.

Packet Page 61
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 11 of 27 ends

Twenty-five percent of students attending this middle school live within 1 mile of the Project, and a vast majority live within a 1-2 mile radius. Approximately 14% of students utilize active transportation to get to/from school (Appendix C).

Seaside residents also have health struggles that could be helped by increased walking and bicycling especially for children and African American communities. In 2018, nearly half of all 5th graders in Seaside were overweight or obese. The City’s African American community is the largest in Monterey County, and disproportionately affected by heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. To address these serious health issues, the residents of Seaside need more places in the city where they can feel safe and comfortable walking and bicycling and they need community-based education and encouragement programming to help them incorporate active transportation in their daily lives.

Describe how your projects addresses the needs of people with disabilities While vehicle traffic is expected to remain similar to existing conditions, pedestrian and bicycle traffic is expected to increase as greater accessibility has been provided by the installation of a multiuse path, enhanced crosswalks with pedestrian refuge islands, and traffic calming measures.

Curb extensions will increase visibility and space for pedestrian queues. Medians have been provided for those who previously felt they could not cross such larges distances; this provides a safer location for them to queue when waiting to cross. The two-stage crossing is beneficial for people with vision impairments as it decreases the distance of the crosswalk.

Crossing a 52 to 106-foot wide road using faded standard crosswalks next to motorized traffic traveling at +35mph, creates a high-stress environment not suitable for youth, senior and/or disabled users. Sight distance and visibility at both intersections with Coe Avenue will be improved by installing high-visibility crosswalks. The primary north-south connection across Coe Avenue to Seaside Middle School will be further enhanced by installing an Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB). Sight distance will also be improved as the proposed multiuse trail will provide a minimum 10-foot wide paved path with 5-foot landscaped buffers.

Reduced crossing distance in turn reduce pedestrians' exposure to motorized traffic. Sight distance and visibility issues at the intersections with residential street routes used by parents and their children to get to school will be improved by closing sidewalk gaps and installing enhanced crosswalks and updated curb ramps to correct ADA deficiencies. These countermeasures will allow people with disabilities to walk or bike uninterrupted between home and school with a much greater sense of safety and ease of use.

Packet Page 62
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 12 of 27 ends

Section A Scoring Categories Points
A1) Traffic volume in the corridor 1-5
1 point = 1 - 5,000 ADT;
2 points = 5,001 - 10,000 ADT
4 points = 10,001 - 20,000 ADT
5 points = 20,001+ ADT
A2) Project will mitigate safety hazards 0-5
A3) Regional Significance 0-5
0-5 points based on how well the project serves travelers from other areas or more than one jurisdiction.

A4) Benefits to Disadvantaged Communities 0-5
0-5 points based on how well the project serves disadvantaged communities. Can serve disadvantaged communities by being either within a disadvantaged community or on a route commonly used by disadvantaged communities.

A5) Benefits to people with disabilities 0-5
0-5 points based on how well the project will serve people with disabilities.

Subtotal (max.) 25
Packet Page 63
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 13 of 27 ends

Section B: Complete Streets
The Monterey Bay Area Complete Streets Program is a policy tool that helps local jurisdictions improve their transportation networks by making streets safe and accessible for everyone. The Monterey Bay Area Complete Streets Guidebook is a comprehensive resource designed to assist jurisdictions in developing complete streets projects. For reference, the guidebook is accessible online at:
https://www.tamcmonterey.org/complete-streets
Fill out the Complete Streets Checklist on the following pages and include with your application.

Packet Page 64
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 14 of 27 ends

Complete Streets Checklist
Existing Conditions
Function Classification: Local Collector Arterial
Complete Streets Design Type: (refer to Chapter 4 of the Complete Streets Guidebook) Main Street Avenue Boulevard Parkway
Local/Subdivision Street Rural Road
ROW Width: GJM – 140 ft Coe – 122 ft feet
Roadway Width: GJM – 96 to 106 ft Coe – 52 to 68 feet
Number of lanes N/B: 2/0 S/B: 2/2
2-Way Center Turn Lane: Yes No
Sidewalk Width: 4 ft – 8 ft feet
Landscaping: Yes No
Parking: Yes No
Shoulder Width: feet
Bike Lane Width: 4.5 - 6 feet
Signalized Intersection Yes No
Pavement Condition: Good GJM PCI - 96 Coe PCI - 86 PCI
Posted Speed Limit: GJM – 40 MPH Coe – 25 to 35 mph
Traffic Volume: GJM : 19,340 (North-South) | 8,580 (East-West) AADT Coe/Paralta: 25,280 (North-South) | 8,685 (East-West) AADT Transit Route/Stops: Yes No
Truck Route: Yes No
Based on the matrix linked below*, indicate the existing bicycle level of traffic stress:

LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
Packet Page 65
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 15 of 27 ends

* https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2020/12/BLTS%20Table.pdf Note: The methodology and analysis used to develop the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress table linked above is an adaptation to fit Boston’s context from the Mineta Transportation Insititute’s report “Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity” and NACTO’s “Urban Bikeway Design Guide”.

For more information about All Ages & Abilities Facilities, see page 4 at the following link:
https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NACTO_Designing-for-All-Ages-Abilities.pdf.

Packet Page 66
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 16 of 27 ends

Future Conditions
There are planned transportation and land use projects that could affect circulation in the project area Yes No
If so, please list the project(s): Future development east of General Jim Moore Blvd and south of Coe Avenue more specifically called Seaside East. One of the General Plan Goals is to create a complete community in Seaside East with a mix of parks, recreation, employment, retail and services, and housing. Specifically, the eventual build-out of the area.

The planned projects are anticipated to increase travel demand in the following modes: (Circle all that apply)
Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian
Stakeholder Outreach
Which stakeholder groups provided input on the project scope and design? Neighborhood Group Bicycle Committee Business
Pedestrian Committee School Senior Group
Property Owners Transit Agency Environmental Group
Transportation Disadvantaged
Describe how the outreach was conducted in one paragraph or less:

As part of the Seaside & Marina Safe Walking & Biking to School: Complete Streets Plan (Appendix C), Seaside Middle parents were asked to complete a bilingual paper survey about their attitudes toward walking and biking to school in August of 2018, and 188 surveys were received. The survey asked parents to select the most important factors in their decisions whether to allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top five issues for parents whose children do not currently walk or bike to school were distance from home, safety at intersections and crossings, speed of traffic, time, and concerns about violence or crime.

Packet Page 67
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 17 of 27 ends

Opportunities & Challenges
Transportation Network Deficiencies (circle all that apply) Lacking or insufficient facilities Bicycle Pedestrian Transit Lacking or insufficient network connectivity Bicycle Pedestrian Transit Insufficient accommodations for seniors Bicycle Pedestrian Transit Insufficient accommodations for the disabled Bicycle Pedestrian Transit Insufficient accommodations for students/youth Bicycle Pedestrian Transit The project will implement the following Complete Streets elements (check all that apply):
_____ Road Diet (road width > 56’; AADT < 20,000; bike/pedestrian supportive land use; safety) __X___ Traffic Calming
__X___ Roundabout
_____ Transit-Oriented Development
_____ Neighborhood Shared Street
_____ Pedestrian Place
_____ Transit / Bicycle / Pedestrian Prioritization at intersections Based on the matrix linked below*, indicate the anticipated bicycle level of traffic stress after the proposed improvements are constructed:

LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
* https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2020/12/BLTS%20Table.pdf Note: The methodology and analysis used to develop the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress table linked above is an adaptation to fit Boston’s context from the Mineta Transportation Insititute’s Packet Page 68
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 18 of 27 ends

report “Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity” and NACTO’s “Urban Bikeway Design Guide”.

For more information about All Ages & Abilities Facilities, see page 4 at the following link:
https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NACTO_Designing-for-All-Ages-Abilities.pdf.

Check here if this project is a pedestrian enhancement project only _____ Which Complete Streets design features are included in this project? (Circle all that apply) Pedestrian Design Bicycle Design Transit Design
Minimize Driveways Bicycle Lanes Priority Bus Lane
Sidewalk/Path Shared-Lane Marking Bus Bulb/Pull-Outs
Landscaping/Parking Buffer Multiuse Path Shelter
ADA Access Wayfinding Signs Real Time Bus Arrival Info
Street Trees Bicycle Parking ITS / Signal Priority
Crossing Treatments Bicycle Detection Transit (15 min headway) Traffic Calming Bicycle Box Wi-Fi Service
Wayfinding Signs Color-Treated Bike Lanes Stop/Station Amenities Audible Countdown Floating Bike Lanes
Other (describe below)
Project Trade-Offs
The recommended complete streets cross section and/or design is supportable Yes No If not, explain why: (circle all that apply)
Lack of ROW Existing structures Environmental features
Insufficient funding Other:________________________________ Packet Page 69
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 19 of 27 ends

Alternative designs have been considered Yes No
What refinements to the cross section were needed and why? As part of the ICE study, the roundabout alternative was compared to the existing condition and compared to an upgraded traffic signal. The signal alternatives left much less room for landscaping and sidewalk upgrades.

Removed/partially removed zones for:

Pedestrians Bicyclists Landscaping Vehicles
Considered alternative routes/locations for:

Pedestrians Bicyclists Landscaping Vehicles
Is this a maintenance project? Yes No
What types of destinations does the project connect transportation disadvantaged communities to? (Circle all that apply)
Transit Schools Senior Housing Affordable Housing
Parks Community Center Library
Does the project close a gap in the network for: Bicycle Pedestrian Transit Exceptions
The project is exempt from accommodating certain users _N/A_ Cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need or probably use _____ There is documented absence of current and future need _____ Other:

Packet Page 70
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 20 of 27 ends

Section B Scoring Categories Points
B1) Stakeholder outreach was conducted on the project scope and design 0-5 B2) The project is expected to reduce bicycle level of traffic stress 0-5 B3) The project incorporates one of the following Complete Street Treatments 0-5 Road Diet
Traffic Calming
Roundabout
Transit-Oriented Development / Transit Corridor
Neighborhood Shared Street
Pedestrian Place
Transit/Bicycle/Pedestrian Prioritization at Intersections B4) Project improves bicycle, pedestrian, or transit design features 0 or 2.5 B5) This is a maintenance project with Complete Streets enhancements 0 or 2.5 B6) Improve access and/or close a gap for transportation disadvantaged communities 0 or 5 Subtotal (max.) 25
Packet Page 71
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 21 of 27 ends

Section C: Project Readiness & Cost Effectiveness
Provide a schedule of when the project components (e.g. design, construction) will be started and completed. Attach supporting documentation and additional information as needed. List all costs associated with the project. The RSTP money requested would be granted for a three-year time frame. Indicate whether matching funds are secured or unsecured under Fund Status.

Total RSTP funding request: $___955,000________
Total Other funding: $___3,376,000______
Total Project Cost: $__ 4,379,000 ______
Phase
Start
Date
(M/YY)
End
Date
(M/YY)
Funding ($1,000s)
Fund
Source
Funds
Secured
(Y/N) Prior FY23/24 FY24/25 FY25/26
Conceptual
Design &
ICE Study
02/2020 06/2020 $48 RSTP FS Y
Environmental
Review &
Outreach
9/2023 02/2024 $205 RSTP N
Design: _100_%
Complete
9/2023 12/2024 $750 RSTP N
Right of Way N/A
Packet Page 72
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 22 of 27 ends

Construction 4/2025 10/2026 $1,688 $1,688
ATP Cycle
7 or
other
Grant
funds
N
Operating $2/year General
Fund
Y
Maintenance $2/year General
Fund
Y
Other:

For all projects, a benefit / cost analysis must be completed and submitted with the application demonstrating the positive financial benefits of the project. You can use one of the established models developed by Caltrans or you may use your own model approved by TAMC staff.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/division-of-transportation-planning/dataanalytics-services/transportation-economics Benefit / Cost Ratio Result:

The Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard and Seaside Middle School Intersection Improvements will provide an $11,177,152 cost benefit compared to the existing conditions.

Both the Coe/Paralta and Coe/General Jim Moore intersections were evaluated in the City of Seaside ICE study. The existing intersection control as well one or two alternative controls were Packet Page 73
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 23 of 27 ends

evaluated at each intersection. The individual intersection benefit and cost amounts were combined to create a Total Intersection B/C Ratio as compared to the existing condition.

Four performance measures were evaluated at each intersection for signal and roundabout control; each of these measures is assigned a monetary value and used in the B/C Ratio calculation.
• Safety measures the societal cost associated with the predicted number and severity and collisions. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters. Injury and Fatality crashes are on average 700-1,000 times more expense than Property Damage Only accidents.
• Delay measures the societal cost associated with the number of person-hours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters. • O&M measures the common annualized costs associated with operating and maintaining the intersection.
• Initial Capital Costs (ICC) includes the funds needed to plan, design, obtain project approvals, acquire right-of-way, and construct the intersection control.

Added Benefits Added Costs B/C
Coe Ave at Paralta Ave $ 2,158,540 $ 567,308 3.80
Coe Ave at General Jim Moore $ 12,347,447 $ 2,761,527 4.47 TOTAL $ 14,505,987 $ 3,328,835 8.27
A B/C Ratio greater than 1.00 indicates that the proposed intersection control alternative provides a better return on investment when compared to the existing intersection control type, in this case the project benefits significantly outweigh the costs. See Appendix B – Project Specific ICE Evaluations and Appendix F – Full City of Seaside ICE Study.

Packet Page 74
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 24 of 27 ends

Section C Scoring Categories Points
C1) Project is ready to bid within: 0-5
1 points = Three years
3 points = Two years
5 points = One year
C2) Request for funding will fully fund the project 0-5 0 points = Funding plan does not fully-fund project
3 points = Funding plan is fully-funded, less than 50% non-RSTP funds secured 5 points = Funding plan is fully-funded, more than 50% non-RSTP funds secured 7 points = Funding plan is fully-funded, more than 75% non-RSTP funds secured 10 points = Funding plan is fully-funded, 100% non-RSTP funds secured C3) Project has already started and/or has completed the following phase(s): 0-10 5 points = Environmental Review
5 points = Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
1 point = 30% complete
2 points = 60% complete
4 points = 90% complete
5 points = 100% complete
C4) Benefit / cost ratio 0-5
0 point = <1
5 points = >1
Subtotal (max.) 25
Packet Page 75
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 25 of 27 ends

Section D: Prior Project Delivery Performance
Jurisdictions applying for RSTP Competitive Grant funds should be fully utilizing all available RSTP Fair Share funds. The jurisdiction’s ability and commitment to deliver the proposed project within the three-year timely-use of funds programming cycle, as well as past performance on competitively awarded projects, is also critically important to ensure grant funds are not reserved for projects that do not move forward.

What is your jurisdiction’s RSTP Fair Share unprogrammed balance? $201,345 If your jurisdiction has unprogrammed Regional Surface Transportation Program Fair Share funds, how are you proposing to fully-utilize those funds? The City of Seaside recently received funds from the Fair Share program; these funds are anticipated to be used for street striping per the City’s FY 23/24 Capital Improvement Program Draft Budget.

If your jurisdiction has previously received Regional Surface Transportation Program Competitive funds, discuss your track record with delivering those projects within the 3-year program cycle and any challenges encountered with project delivery.

In the 2020 RSTP Competitive Cycle, $600,000 was awarded for the Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Project for the PA&ED phase. The PS&ED portion of the project is substantially complete and billing will be finalized by August 2023. CTC approved the Request for Funding Allocation for the PS&E portion of the project at the May meeting, and the project is proceeding on schedule.

The City plane to approach the Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard and Seaside Middle School Intersection Improvements project in a similar way to the Broadway CSC project Packet Page 76
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 26 of 27 ends

by first securing funds for Environmental, Outreach, and Design, then securing funds for construction through additional funding sources.

The City of Seaside received $4,050,000 in grant funds from RSTP Competitive Grant Funds and 2% TDA Grant funds for the West Broadway Urban Village Infrastructure Improvement Project in 2015. The funds were used for design, design support during construction, construction management, and project management. The City received funding for the construction from a federal ATP grant of $3.694M. The project was substantially complete in 2018, however due to punch list items and federal reporting requirements, the project was completely closed out December 2019.

Does this request for grant funding cover a cost overrun? (Yes or No) No If yes, please explain the issue related to the cost overrun.

Packet Page 77
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
2023 Guidelines & Policies for the Administration of Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

Page 27 of 27 ends

Section D Scoring Categories Points
D1) The jurisdiction is maximizing the use of RSTP Fair Share 0 or 10 D2) The jurisdiction has delivered previously-awarded competitive projects on time 0-10 D3) This funding request does not fund a cost-overrun 0 or 5 Subtotal (max.) 25
Packet Page 78
City of Seaside - Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard and Seaside Middle School Intersection Improvements RSTP Grant Attachments: Appendix A – Project Map & Layout Plan
Appendix B – Project Specific ICE Evaluations
Appendix C – Excerpts from Seaside and Marina Safe Walking and Biking to School:

Complete Streets Plan
Appendix D – NDS Traffic Counts and Intersection Volume Summaries Appendix E – Growth Rate Memo
Appendix F – Full City of Seaside ICE Study
Packet Page 79
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Appendix A
Project Map & Layout Plan
Packet Page 80
Packet Page 81
Broadway Ave Complete Street Corridor Project Area Broadway Ave Complete Street Corridor Project Area Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard and
Seaside Middle School Intersection Improvements Project Area Packet Page 82 ® Know what's below. Call before you dig. MAY 2023 COE AVENUE AND GENERAL JIM MOORE BOULEVARD AND SEASIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF SEASIDE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 10' MIN MULTIUSE PATH 10' MIN MULTIUSE PATH ENHANCED

CROSSWALK WITH RRFB & PEDESTRIANREFUGE

ENHANCEDCROSSWALK WITHPEDESTRIAN REFUGE SEASIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL

BUS STOPEXISTING SIGN &PAD TO REMAIN

ENHANCEDCROSSWALK WITHPEDESTRIAN REFUGE
ACCESS RESTRICTED TOEMERGENCY VEHICLES.BOLLARD REMOVED FOREASIER BIKE/PED ACCESS.

Packet Page 83
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Appendix B
Project Specific ICE Evaluations
Packet Page 84
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 7 of 103 ends

Intersection 1.1 – Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Closed)

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The three intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing AWSC (All-Way Stop-Control)

2. Traffic Signal

3. Mini-Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Coe Ave at Paralta Ave is currently stop controlled. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Bus Stop

2. Proximity to GJM Blvd

3. Steep slope and grass-lined channel

4. Seaside Middle School

5. Single family residential

6. Intersection pinch point/Existing gate

7. Water utilities facility

8. Driveway

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus N/A N/A
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses N/A N/A Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs X
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
INT 1.1
Coe Ave at Paralta Ave (Gate Closed)
Qualitative Assessment
Packet Page 85
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 8 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION LIFE CYCLE COST CALCULATIONS
The first-stage B/C analysis compares proposed improvements to the existing conditions. If the B/C Ratio is greater than 1.0, the proposed improvements have a greater return on investment than the existing control.

Performance Measure Life Cycle Cost (Net Present Value) Safety
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $49,194 $158,990 $75,394
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $690,154 $2,230,498 $1,057,720

Delay
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 11465 1293 698
Annual Cost $ 133,974 $ 17,085 $ 9,243
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 2,947,428 $ 375,864 $ 203,351

O&M
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs 520 9,220 1,920
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $ 7,295 $ 129,349 $ 26,936 Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $ 8,418 $ 10,750 $ 10,750 Total O&M Costs $ 15,713 $ 140,099 $ 37,686

Initial Capital
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
High Approximation $0 $1,200,000 $700,000
Low Approximation $0 $800,000 $400,000

Life Cycle Benefit Cost Ratio
Total Benefits (B)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Safety $ - $ (1,540,344) $ (367,566)
Delay $ - $ 2,571,565 $ 2,744,077
Total Benefits $ - $ 1,031,220 $ 2,376,512

Total Costs (C)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
O&M $ - $ 124,386 $ 21,973
Budget $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 550,000
Total Costs $ - $ 1,124,386 $ 571,973

B/C Ratio Compared to Existing NA* 0.92* 4.15
*The roundabout has a B/C ratio greater than 1.0 which means it is preferred over the existing AWSC. The signal has a B/C ratio less than 1.0; however, the operations for the existing AWSC fail in the future and will require an improvement. The rest of this section will compare the proposed roundabout and traffic signal.

Packet Page 86
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 9 of 103 ends

PERFORMANCE MEASURE SUMMARY
Four performance measures were evaluated at each intersection for signal and roundabout control. The table below summarizes the performance measures considered in this study.

Performance Measure Preferred
Alt. Visual Representation
Benefits
Safety
Safety measures the societal cost
associated with the predicted number
and severity and collisions. Overall
societal costs are based on Caltrans
Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters.

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.

Packet Page 87
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 10 of 103 ends

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the signal ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the signal ICC and the high-end of the roundabout ICC.

Note that NA-R means the additional ICC of a roundabout is less than the ICC of the signal plus the added operations and Maintenance (O&M), and the roundabout provides greater benefits of the traditional improvements, a B/C ratio is negative, and the roundabout is preferred.

Signal ICC Range
Roundabout ICC Range
Roundabout Budget
B/C = 1
Estimated ICC Range
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Closed). The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout and signal options are represented by the vertical and horizontal solid lines, respectively. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. If a pair of roundabout and signal ICC costs (x and y values) are above the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater ROI. If a pair of roundabout and signal ICC costs is below the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is less than 1.0 and the signal has the greater ROI. The roundabout budget is the is depicted with the green dotted line and represents how much can be spent on the roundabout ICC to achieve a neutral B/C equal to 1.0.

PREFERRED INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative based on B/C ratio for this intersection is roundabout control.

Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
B/C Target
Traffic Signal
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total
Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ 1,200,000 $ 400,000 $ (800,000) $ (904,746) NA-R Low $ 800,000 $ 700,000 $ (100,000) $ (204,746) NA-R
Roundabout Budget 1,000,000 $ $ 2,450,037 $ 1,450,037 $ 1,345,291 1.00 Capital Cost Project Constraints
$ (104,746) $ 1,345,291
Packet Page 88
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 11 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Traffic Signal
Mini-Roundabout
Packet Page 89
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.1 – Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Open)

Page 12 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION 1.1 – COE AVENUE AT PARALTA AVENUE (GATE OPEN)

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The three intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing AWSC (All-Way Stop-Control)

2. Traffic Signal

3. Mini-Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Coe Ave at Paralta Ave is currently stop controlled. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Bus Stop

2. Proximity to GJM Blvd

3. Steep slope and grass-lined channel

4. Seaside Middle School

5. Single family residential

6. Intersection pinch point/Existing gate

7. Water utilities facility

8. Driveway

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus N/A N/A
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses N/A N/A Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs X
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
INT 1.1
Coe Ave at Paralta Ave (Gate Open)
Qualitative Assessment
Packet Page 90
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.1 – Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Open)

Page 13 of 103 ends

Performance Measure Life Cycle Cost (Net Present Value) Safety
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $ 50,118 $ 233,222 $ 105,097
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $ 703,118 $ 3,271,902 $ 1,474,427

Delay
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 12,166 2,136 768
Annual Cost $ 143,363 $ 28,243 $ 10,188
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 3,153,980 $ 621,343 $ 224,131

O&M
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs 520 9,220 1,920
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $ 7,295 $ 129,349 $ 26,936 Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $ 10,750 $ 10,750 $ 8,418 Total O&M Costs $ 18,046 $ 140,099 $ 35,354

Initial Capital
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
High Approximation $ 0 $ 1,200,000 $ 700,000
Low Approximation $ 0 $ 800,000 $ 400,000

Life Cycle Benefit-Cost Ratio
Total Benefits (B)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Safety $ - $ (2,568,784) $ (771,309)
Delay $ - $ 2,532,637 $ 2,929,849
Total Benefits $ - $ (36,147) $ 2,158,540

Total Costs (C)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
O&M $ - $ 122,054 $ 17,308
Budget $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 550,000
Total Costs $ - $ 1,122,054 $ 567,308

B/C Ratio Compared to Existing NA* NA-S* 3.80
*The roundabout has a B/C ratio greater than 1.0 which means it is preferred over the existing AWSC. The signal provides less benefits than the existing AWSC, which makes it NA-S (existing is preferred); however, the operations for the existing AWSC fail in the future and will require an improvement. The rest of this section will compare the proposed roundabout and traffic signal.

Packet Page 91
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.1 – Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Open)

Page 14 of 103 ends

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.

Packet Page 92
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.1 – Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Open)

Page 15 of 103 ends

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the signal ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the signal ICC and the high-end of the roundabout ICC.

Signal ICC Range
Roundabout ICC Range
Roundabout Budget
B/C = 1
Estimated ICC Range
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Open). The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout and signal options are represented by the vertical and horizontal solid lines, respectively. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. If a pair of roundabout and signal ICC costs (x and y values) are above the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater ROI. If a pair of roundabout and signal ICC costs is below the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is less than 1.0 and the signal has the greater ROI. The roundabout budget is the is depicted with the green dotted line and represents how much can be spent on the roundabout ICC to achieve a neutral B/C equal to 1.0.

PREFERRED INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative based on B/C ratio for this intersection is roundabout control.

B/C Target
Traffic Signal
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ 1,200,000 $ 400,000 $ (800,000) $ (904,746) NA-R Low $ 800,000 $ 700,000 $ (100,000) $ (204,746) NA-R
Roundabout Budget 1,000,000 $ $ 3,299,433 $ 2,299,433 $ 2,194,687 1.00 Capital Cost Project Constraints
$ (104,746) $ 2,194,687
Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
Packet Page 93
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.1 – Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Open)

Page 16 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Traffic Signal
Mini-Roundabout
Packet Page 94
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.2 – Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 17 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION 1.2 – COE AVENUE AT GENERAL JIM MOORE BOULEVARD

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The two intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing AWSC (All-Way Stop-Control)

2. Traffic Signal

3. Multi-lane Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Coe Ave at General Jim Moore Blvd is currently controlled by signals. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Proximity to Paralta Ave

2. Steep grade

3. Water utilities facility

4. Seaside Middle School

5. Telephone pole

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus N/A N/A
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses N/A N/A Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs X
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
INT 1.2
Coe Ave at GJM Blvd
Qualitative Assessment
Packet Page 95
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.2 – Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 18 of 103 ends

Performance Measure Life Cycle Cost (Net Present Value) Safety
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $ 136,942 $ 383,835 $ 120,828 Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $ 1,921,182 $ 5,384,886 $ 1,695,115

Delay
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 52564 10400 4843
Annual Cost $ 609,740 $ 129,777 $ 58,768
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 13,414,274 $ 2,855,089 $ 1,292,895

O&M
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs 520 9,220 1,920
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $ 7,295 $ 129,349 $ 26,936 Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $ 80,628 $ 80,628 $ 72,515 Total O&M Costs $ 87,924 $ 209,977 $ 99,451

Initial Capital
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
High Approximation $ 0 $ 1,200,000 $ 3,500,000
Low Approximation $ 0 $ 800,000 $ 2,000,000

Life Cycle Benefit-Cost Ratio
Total Benefits (B)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Safety $ - $ (3,463,704) $ 226,068
Delay $ - $ 10,559,185 $ 12,121,379
Total Benefits $ - $ 7,095,481 $ 12,347,447

Total Costs (C)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
O&M $ - $ 122,054 $ 11,527
Budget $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 2,750,000
Total Costs $ - $ 1,122,054 $ 2,761,527

B/C Ratio Compared to Existing NA 6.32 4.47
Both the roundabout and traffic signal have a B/C ratio greater than 1.0 which means they are preferred over the existing AWSC. The rest of this section will compare the proposed roundabout and traffic signal.

Packet Page 96
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.2 – Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 19 of 103 ends

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.

Packet Page 97
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.2 – Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 20 of 103 ends

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the signal ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the signal ICC and the high-end of the roundabout ICC.

Signal ICC Range
Roundabout ICC Range
Roundabout Budget
B/C = 1
Estimated ICC Range
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard. The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout and signal options are represented by the vertical and horizontal solid lines, respectively. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. If a pair of roundabout and signal ICC costs (x and y values) are above the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater ROI. If a pair of roundabout and signal ICC costs is below the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is less than 1.0 and the signal has the greater ROI. The roundabout budget is the is depicted with the green dotted line and represents how much can be spent on the roundabout ICC to achieve a neutral B/C equal to 1.0.

PREFERRED INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVE
Both a traffic signal and a roundabout are preferred to the existing AWSC based on the B/C ratios. A roundabout is preferred over a traffic signal with a B/C range of 2.03 to 7.61.

B/C Target
Traffic Signal
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ 1,200,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 800,000 $ 689,879 7.61
Low $ 800,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 2,700,000 $ 2,589,879 2.03
Roundabout Budget 1,000,000 $ $ 6,362,086 $ 5,362,086 $ 5,251,965 1.00 Capital Cost Project Constraints
$ (110,121) $ 5,251,965
Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
Packet Page 98
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.2 – Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 21 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Traffic Signal
Multi-Lane Roundabout
Packet Page 99
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Appendix C
Excerpts from Seaside and Marina Safe Walking and Biking to School: Complete Streets Plan Packet Page 100
Funding provided by:

Seaside & Marina Safe Walking & Biking to School:

Complete Streets Plan
In partnership with:

Packet Page 101
P. 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN Plan Goals
The Cities of Seaside and Marina have set the following goals to reduce collisions and increase cycling and walking trips by implementing projects and programs from the Complete Streets Plan.

City of Seaside:
• The majority of students arrive at school via active transportation or carpooling. • Severe injuries and fatal collisions for bicyclists and pedestrians are eliminated.

City of Marina:
• 50% of students arrive at school via active transportation or carpooling. • Severe injuries and fatal collisions for bicyclists and pedestrians are eliminated.

Recommended Projects & Prioritization
This Plan includes 206 infrastructure recommendations for city roadways and school district properties. Recommendations for each school site were developed on the basis of community input on the challenges of walking, bicycling, and driving to school, and observations from walk audits that were held at each site.

Projects are listed as short, medium, or long term according to the estimated time span for implementation. These estimates are based on the cost and complexity of each project.

Implementation & Funding
The projects in this Plan will be implemented over time as funding becomes available. Leveraging local funds with additional grant funding will be critical for implementation. There is also the opportunity for the Cities of Seaside and Marina to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements as part of their street and road improvements.

There are three main funding sources the Cities of Seaside and Marina can use to implement the active transportation improvements in this Plan: Measure X funds in the Pedestrian and Bike Safety and Mobility category, State Active Transportation Program funds, and California Senate Bill 1 funds.

Packet Page 102
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 7 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The Seaside and Marina Safe Walking & Biking to School: Complete Streets Plan provides recommendations for improving safety at the 15 public schools of the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District located in the cities of Seaside and Marina.

The Plan includes a prioritized list of infrastructure improvements and program recommendations to encourage more active transportation trips to school and improve the safety of children who are walking and biking.

What are Complete Streets?
Complete streets are roadways designed to safely and comfortably accommodate all users, including drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders. Complete streets also accommodate users of all ages and abilities and expand transportation options by making all modes of travel convenient and safe. This framework can be used to improve the options for students and families traveling to and from school.

Benefits of Safe Routes to Schools
The simple act of traveling to school can have a tremendous positive impact on the health of individuals and communities.

Seaside and Marina face challenges with traffic around
schools, youth obesity rates, and collisions involving youths who are walking or bicycling. More carpooling and active transportation trips will provide the following benefits:
• Healthier students: Walking or riding a bike, scooter, or skateboard to school is good exercise, improves
fitness, and has been demonstrated to improve
academic performance.
• Safer Students: Shifting trips to carpooling, walking, and biking reduces traffic congestion, increases
safety, and improves air quality around schools.
• Lower transportation costs: Carpooling, walking, and
biking provide a low- or no-cost alternative to driving alone. Driving a newer sedan costs an average of
$8,849 annually.¹
• Cleaner Air and Environment: Transportation is the
largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in
California.² Shifting car trips to walking and biking
helps our planet.

1. AAA Newsroom: https://newsroom.aaa.com/auto/your-driving-costs/.

2. California Air Resources Board: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data.

Complete Streets
Chapter 1: Introduction
Packet Page 103
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 8 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The Six E’s
This Plan’s recommendations are grouped into the Six E’s of Safe Routes to Schools, as defined by the Safe Routes Partnership. The Six E’s are a nationally recognized framework for increasing walking and biking to schools. • Engineering: creating physical improvements to streets and neighborhoods that improve traffic flow near schools and make walking and biking safer, more comfortable, and more convenient. • Education: providing students and families with the skills to get to school safely and informing them on the wide range of transportation choices.
• Encouragement: using events, activities, and programs to raise awareness and build support for safe and healthy transportation such as walking and biking.
• Enforcement: partnering with local law enforcement to deter unsafe behaviors and encourage safe traffic speeds and behaviors. • Evaluation: assessing which approaches to Safe Routes to Schools are more or less successful.
• Equity: ensuring that Safe Routes to School initiatives benefit everyone, with particular attention to low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, and other transportation disadvantaged populations.

Mode-Shift and Collision-Reduction Goals
The Cities of Seaside and Marina have set the following goals to reduce bicycle and pedestrian collisions and increase the number of students who bike, walk, or carpool to school by implementing these recommendations.

City of Seaside
• The majority of students arrive at school via active transportation or carpooling.
• Severe injuries and fatal collisions are eliminated for bicyclists and pedestrians.

City of Marina
• 50% of students arrive at school via active transportation or carpooling. • Severe injuries and fatal collisions are eliminated for bicyclists and pedestrians.

The Six E’s:

1. Engineering

2. Education

3. Encouragement

4. Enforcement

5. Evaluation

6. Equity
Packet Page 104
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 9 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Community Participation Process
Input from the community was the basis of this Plan’s recommendations. The following methods were used to learn from school communities and surrounding neighborhoods about their biggest barriers to active transportation. Feedback was then used to develop the list of recommendations.

Community Meetings
Two community meetings covering all Seaside and Marina schools were held in fall 2018 at Martin Luther King Jr.

Elementary in Seaside and Crumpton Elementary in Marina. Parents, school and district staff, elected officials, and City staff participated to learn about barriers to biking and walking, traffic safety issues around schools, and ideas for future projects. Bilingual outreach materials were used to promote the meetings, and Spanish translation was offered at each meeting. Dinner and childcare were provided using local funds to let parents and guardians attend and participate in the meetings.

School Walk Audits
Following the community meetings, “walk audits” were held at each of the 15 schools to observe conditions during the morning drop-off period. School principals, parents, community members, and City staff observed the existing infrastructure around the schools, traffic circulation patterns, and the behavior of pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. Following the audit, the group came together to report their observations, record any barriers to safe walking and cycling, and start the discussion of possible infrastructure improvements.

Parent Surveys
Bilingual paper surveys from the National Center for Safe Routes to School were distributed to parents at each school. These surveys collected data on how students get to school now, how far they live from school, and the barriers that prevent parents from allowing their children to walk or bike. Full survey results can be found in Appendix 2. School Walk Audits
Packet Page 105
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 10 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Student Travel Mode Surveys
Teachers at each school were asked to conduct student travel mode surveys developed by the National Center for Safe Routes to Schools. These surveys ask students to report how they got to school over a two-day period. Full survey results can be found in Appendix 2.

Online Forum
A bilingual project website was created to explain the planning process, promote the community meetings and school audits, and solicit public comments.

Parent Meetings
Following the development of recommendations for each school, Public Works, Monterey County Health Department, and Ecology Action staff attended parent meetings to share the recommendations and get feedback from parents and school staff. Where appropriate, presentations were given in Spanish.

Pop-Up Demonstrations
Recommendations for Broadway Avenue in Seaside and Carmel Avenue in Marina were installed on a temporary basis in spring 2019. The goal of the demonstrations was to learn how the recommendations worked in practice and to get feedback from the community on whether the changes should be made permanent. More information on the pop-up demonstrations can be found in Chapter 7.

Packet Page 106
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 11 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
This chapter describes existing conditions in the cities of Seaside and Marina, including transportation mode split characteristics, school locations, and collision data. This chapter also describes the Plan’s consistency with other local and regional planning documents and current projects and programs related to Safe Routes to Schools.

Community Profile: City of Seaside
Seaside is the second-largest city in Monterey County, with a population of 34,165 in 2017.³ It is also a demographically young city, with 25% of its population under the age of 18. Seaside is the most ethnically diverse city in Monterey County:
42% of residents are Hispanic/Latino, 31% are white, 10% are Asian, and 7% are African American.4 According to census data, the majority of Seaside residents drive alone to work. Five percent of residents walk or bike to work, and 4% take public transportation.5
Mode Share for Work Trips City of Seaside 2013-2017

3. California Department of Finance, 2017.

4. Census American Community Survey 2013-2017 Demographics and Housing Estimates, Table S0501.

5. Census American Community Survey 2013-2017 Commuting Characteristics by Sex, Table SO801.

Drove Alone, 68%
Carpool, 14%
Bus,
4%
Walked, 3%
Bike, 2% Worked at
Home, 5%

MODE SHARE FOR WORK TRIPS

CITY OF SEASIDE
Packet Page 107
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 12 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Community Profile: City of Marina
The city of Marina is located to the north of Seaside and had a population of 21,528 in 2017.3 It has a smaller percentage of people under 18 (21.4%) than Monterey County as a whole but a larger percentage of older residents, with 14% being 65 or over. Marina is also ethnically diverse: 28% of residents are Hispanic/Latino, 36% are white, 18% are Asian, and 7% are African American.4
Marina has a higher rate of driving alone to work than Monterey County. Carpooling rates are slightly higher, and rates of biking, walking, and transit use are identical to countywide rates.5 Mode Share for Work Trips City of Marina

3. California Department of Finance, 2017.

4. Census American Community Survey 2013-2017 Demographics and Housing Estimates, Table S0501.

5. Census American Community Survey 2013-2017 Commuting Characteristics by Sex, Table SO801.

6. California Department of Education: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filessp.asp.

7. California Health Disadvantaged Index: http://phasocal.org/ca-hdi/.

Disadvantaged Communities
Investments in active transportation are particularly important for disadvantaged communities, which tend to have higher rates of walking and bicycling. Of the approximately 7,500 students who attend the 15 schools covered in this Plan, 64% are eligible for Free or Reduced Price Meals, which is an indicator of low-income households.6 Seaside and Marina residents grapple with high living costs, and each city houses disadvantaged populations as defined by the Health Disadvantaged Index and the CalEnviroScreen 3.0. One in seven Seaside residents lives in a disadvantaged neighborhood: one where 60% of households live in poverty, 17% of households lack access to a car, and 53% of people have no high school education. One in ten Marina residents lives in a disadvantaged neighborhood, where 53% of households live in poverty, 16% lack access to a car, and nearly 30% have no high school education.7 Drove Alone, 75%
Carpool, 13%
Bus, 2%
Walked, 3% Bike, 1%
Worked at Home, 4%

MODE SHARE FOR WORK TRIPS

CITY OF MARINA
Packet Page 108
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 13 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
School Locations
This Plan includes all 15 public K–12 schools within the cities of Seaside and Marina. The map below shows school locations along with key destinations like parks, libraries, community centers, and high-density housing developments as defined by the Seaside and Marina general plans.

Packet Page 109
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 14 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Collision Data
Bicyclists and pedestrians are disproportionately involved in collisions in Seaside and Marina. Between 2013 and 2017, walking and bicycling accounted for 5% of trips to work in Seaside and 4% of work trips in Marina.5 During the same time period, bicyclists and pedestrians were involved in 18% of the collisions in Seaside and 14% of those in Marina.8 Youths are also disproportionately involved in bicycle and pedestrian collisions. As shown in the graphs below, 34% of victims in bicycle and pedestrian collisions in Seaside are 19 or younger, and 23% are 14 or younger. In Marina, 30% of victims in bicycle and pedestrian collisions are under 19, and 21% are 14 or younger.8

5. Census American Community Survey 2013-2017 Commuting Characteristics by Sex, Table SO801.

8. Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, University of California, Berkeley. 2019.

Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, University of California, Berkeley. 2019 45 (23%)
21 (11%)
22 (11%)
14 (7%)15 (8%)
12 (6%)10 (5%)
16 (8%)
10 (5%)
11 (6%)
10 (5%)
5 (3%) 3 (2%) 1 (1%) 0 1 (1%) 3 (2%)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 No. of Victims
City of Seaside: Victims of Bicycle/Pedestrian Collisions by Age, 2007- 2017
26 (21%)
11 (9%)
11 (9%)
12 (10%)
8 (6%)
3 (2%)
5 (4%)
8 (6%)
14 (11%)
9 (7%)
3 (2%)
5 (4%)
0 4 (3%)
1 (1%) 2 (2%)
4 (3%)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 No. of Victims
City of Marina: Victims of Bicycle/Pedestrian
Collisions by Age, 2007-2017
City of Seaside: Victims of Bicycle/Pedestrian Collisions by Age, 2007-2017 City of Marina: Victims of Bicycle/Pedestrian Collisions by Age, 2007-2017 Packet Page 110
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 15 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following maps show all bicyclist and pedestrian injury and fatality collisions in the cities of Seaside and Marina from 2007 to 2017. Not surprisingly, major corridors and intersections are the sites of most collisions in both cities. In Seaside, Fremont Boulevard and Broadway Avenue have high collision rates, particularly the intersections of Fremont Boulevard with Hilby Avenue, La Salle Avenue, and Playa Avenue.

In Marina, Del Monte Boulevard, Reservation Road, and Carmel Avenue have high collision rates. The intersections of Del Monte Boulevard and Palm Avenue, Carmel and California Avenues, and Del Monte Boulevard and Reservation Road are hotspots for bicycle and pedestrian collisions.

City of Seaside: Bicycle & Pedestrian Collision Heat Map Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2019.

Bicycle & Pedestrian
Crash Data
2007-2017
Heat Map
Seaside High
Ord
Terrace
International
School
MLK Elementary
Highland
Elementary
Seaside
Middle
Packet Page 111
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 19 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Note: The following bicycle facilities have been installed since the completion of the ATP:
• Coe Avenue: Class II bike lanes from Monterey Road to General Jim Moore Boulevard. • Del Monte Boulevard: Class II bike lanes from Canyon Del Rey Boulevard to Broadway Avenue. • Broadway Avenue: Class II bike lanes from Del Monte Boulevard to Fremont Boulevard. • Broadway Avenue: Class III bike route from Fremont Boulevard to General Jim Moore Boulevard. !!
!
!
!
Pacific Ocean

BAKER ST

WHEELER ST
MARINA

MONTEREY

SAND CITY

SEASIDE
Work
Memorial
Park
Ã218
Ã1
1ST ST

DEL MONTE BLVD

N SOUTH RD

CORREGIDORRD

MESCAL ST

CALIF ORNIA RD

INTER-GARRISON RD

ORD GROVE AVE

COE AVE

BUNA RD

PLAYA AVE

LIGHT FIGHTER DR

BRITTANYRD

KENNETH ST

JUDSON ST

TUNISI A RD

TRINITY AVE

LUXTON ST

FLORES ST

LUZERN ST

HIGHLAND ST
3RD ST

CARENTAN RD

NOUMEA RD

CASANOVA AVE

COLONEL DURHAM ST

PENINSULA POINT DR

WARING ST

LOWELL ST
6TH AVE
1ST AVE

PORTOLA DR

METZ RD

LUZONRD

SAND DUNES DR

PLUMAS AVE

HAMILTON AVE

SOTO ST

OKINAWA RD

PARKER FLATS RD

YOSEMITE ST

SONOMA AVE

KIMBALL AVE

LA SALLE AVE

SAN PABLO AVE

MILITARY AVE

ELM AVE

CANYON DEL REY BLVD

HILBY AVE

BROADWAY AVE

EUCALYPTUS RD

GIGLING RD

NOCHE BUENA ST

NORMANDY RD

FREMONT BLVD

BEACH RANGE RD

WATKINS GATE RD

MONTEREY RD

CABRILLO HWY

TRINITY AVE

ARDENNES CIR
Cutino
Park
Fort Ord
Dunes
State Park
Monterey County Active Transportation Plan
Data provided by
Monterey County TAMC.

Terrain data by ESRI, NOAA.

Map produced October 2017
by Alta Planning + Design.

MONTEREY
COUNTY

SAN BENITO
COUNTY
FRESNO
COUNTY
KINGS
COUNTY
KERN
COUNTY

SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY

SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
Points of Interest
K-12 School
! College/University
! City Hall
! Transit Center
! Public Library
Land Use
Park/Open Space
Cal State Monterey Bay
Commercial Area
City Boundary
Existing Bikeways
Class I Shared Use Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Intersection
Proposed Bikeway Improvements
Class I Shared Use Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Protected Bike Lane
Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway
Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail
Uphill bikeway
(Slope > 4%)

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY Map Area
0 ½ 1
MILES ¯
Seaside and Sand City
Coe Avenue and General Jim
Moore Boulevard and
Seaside Middle School
Intersection Improvements
Project
Packet Page 112
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 21 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
City of Seaside General Plan
The Complete Streets Plan is consistent with the policies of the City of Seaside 2003 General Plan Circulation Element, including the following.
• Policy C-1.5: Use traffic-calming methods within residential and mixed-use areas where necessary to create a pedestrian-friendly circulation system.
• Policy C-1.6: Apply creative approaches to increase safety and reduce congestion in areas with unique problems, such as neighborhoods with narrow, one-way streets, areas around schools, neighborhoods with non-essential alleys, and businesses with drive-through access; and other special situations. • Policy C-2.2: Support programs that help reduce congestion and encourage alternative modes of transportation. • Policy C-3.4: Support alternative modes of transportation that encourage physical activity, such as biking and walking.12
The Complete Streets Plan supports the above goals by identifying projects that are designed to reduce traffic speeds, improve safety, and provide new or improved bicycle and pedestrian connections between schools and other destinations, thereby encouraging more active transportation trips and fewer vehicle trips.

The City of Seaside is currently updating its General Plan, and the draft General Plan Mobility Element was also reviewed to ensure consistency with the Complete Streets Plan. The Complete Streets Plan reiterates the recommendation from the draft Mobility Element to reduce Broadway Avenue from four travel lanes to two between Del Monte Boulevard and General Jim Moore Boulevard.13
City of Marina General Plan
The Complete Streets Plan is consistent with the policies of the City of Marina 2000 General Plan Community Infrastructure Element, including:
• 5. The City of Marina shall ensure that walking and bicycling routes are integral parts of street design and form a safe and preferred transportation network.
• 7. The City of Marina shall coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions and agencies, such as TAMC, Caltrans, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Monterey Peninsula Regional Parks District, CSUMB, AMBAG, FORA, BLM, City of Seaside, and Monterey County to pursue projects that develop new pedestrian and bicycle routes and that improve and maintain existing pedestrian and bicycle routes. New routes shall be linked to existing routes wherever possible. The city shall coordinate with these entities to apply for regional funds. • 8. Link existing and future areas of the City with an integrated system of roads, transit, footpaths, and bikeways that connects neighborhoods, commercial areas, schools, parks, and other major community-serving destinations.

12. Seaside General Plan: https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/357/Circulation-Element-PDF?bidId=.

13. Seaside General Plan Update: http://seaside2040.com/.

Packet Page 113
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 28 CHAPTER 3: SCHOOL-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROFILES
Chapter 3: School-Level Recommendations and Profiles
The school-level infrastructure recommendations listed in this chapter are the core of the Complete Streets Plan. They were designed to address the specific challenges at each school site, with the goal of increasing the safety of families walking and biking and encouraging more active transportation trips to school. This chapter includes information on the current conditions at each school, observations from the walking audit, and the list of infrastructure recommendations.

School-specific non-infrastructure recommendations are also listed under each school’s profile, and citywide noninfrastructure recommendations are listed in chapter 5. Schools are organized by city and alphabetically, with Seaside schools listed first.

Infrastructure Treatment Options
Treatments that are recommended frequently in the Plan are described below. These treatments are designed to improve safety for people walking and biking and to reduce traffic speeds.

High-Visibility Crosswalk
Crosswalks marked with a continental pattern have been found to be significantly more visible to drivers than basic crosswalks consisting of two transverse lines.

High-visibility crosswalks have also been found to make drivers more likely to yield to pedestrians.

Raised Crosswalk
A raised crosswalk is a higher section of pavement with a marked crosswalk. It is placed across streets to encourage drivers to slow down and to make pedestrians more visible to drivers. Raised crosswalks usually have sloped ramps leading and following a flat walking section to let cars drive over them.

Offset Crosswalk
An offset crosswalk is one with a center median that acts as both a pedestrian safety island and a means of directing pedestrians to look toward oncoming traffic before crossing the second half of the street.

Source: FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer
Packet Page 114
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 29 CHAPTER 3: SCHOOL-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROFILES
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions narrow the roadway, reduce the pedestrian crossing distance, and make pedestrians more visible to drivers by providing an extension of the sidewalk area into the parking lane.

Curb Ramps
Curb ramps provide access between the sidewalk and the street for people with disabilities, children on bicycles, and people pushing strollers. Curb ramps must include warnings that are detectable by people with vision impairments.

Compact Roundabout
Compact roundabouts are small roundabouts installed on neighborhood streets. They can slow traffic on local and collector streets and calm traffic for pedestrians.

Centerline Diverters
Centerline diverters are raised barriers that are placed in the center of the roadway to prevent U-turns.

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs)
RRFBs are user-actuated flashing lights that supplement warning signs at unsignalized intersections or mid-block crosswalks. They are designed to alert drivers to pedestrians and bicyclists who are waiting to cross the street.

Packet Page 115
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 30 CHAPTER 3: SCHOOL-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROFILES
Class IV Separated Bikeway
A separated bikeway is a bicycle facility that is physically separated from the vehicle lanes by plastic bollards, planters, curbs, or parked cars. These facilities provide more safety and comfort for bicyclists by separating them from vehicle traffic.

Safe Routes to School Corridors and Connectors
Key routes to school in Seaside and Marina have been identified as Safe Routes to Schools corridors and connectors. Corridors are direct routes to schools and are higher priority for improvements, and connectors are routes through the city that link to the corridors. The recommendation for these roadways is to study options for improvements that would reduce traffic speeds and volumes, create safe and convenient crossings for people walking and biking, and raise the visibility of students walking and biking. Wayfinding would be included to direct students to Safe Routes to Schools corridors and to let drivers know to expect pedestrians and bicyclists.

Buffered Bike Lanes
Buffered bike lanes have a striped buffer that provides more space between the bicycle lane and the vehicle lane.

Leading Pedestrian Interval
A leading pedestrian interval gives pedestrians the opportunity to cross an intersection a few seconds before drivers are given a green light. This head start makes pedestrians more visible to drivers who are making a left turn.

Packet Page 116
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 82 CHAPTER 3: SCHOOL-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROFILES
City of Seaside
Grade
Levels
Number
of students
Students residing
within one mile
of school
Students qualifying
for free or reducedprice meals
Students using
active transportation
6–8 827 25.2% 89.4% 14%
Seaside Middle
Seaside Middle is located at the northeastern end of the main residential area of Seaside and draws students from throughout the city (see map below).
n{n{
n{
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(!( !( !(!( !(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(!(
!(
!(!( !( !(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!( !(
!(!( !(
!(
!( !( !(!(!( !(
!(!(!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!!((
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(
!(
!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(
!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(
!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(!(!(
!(
!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(
!(
!(!( !(!( !( !(
!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(!(
!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 0.38 0.75 Miles I
Seaside & Marina Safe Routes to School Plan
Data Source: Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, Enrollment Data (2017-2018) Map Legend
Existing Bike Infrastructure
Bike Path
Bike Lane
Bike Route
!( Students
n{ Public Libraries
Community Centers
Fort Ord
National
Monument
Monterey Bay ≤1/2mi: 25 students
>1/2mi-1mi: 96 students
>1-2mi: 516 students
Packet Page 117
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 83 CHAPTER 3: SCHOOL-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROFILES
Parent Survey
Seaside Middle parents were asked to complete a bilingual paper survey about their attitudes toward walking and biking to school in August of 2018, and 188 surveys were received. The full survey report is in Appendix 2.

The survey asked parents to select the most important factors in their decisions whether to allow their children to walk or bike to school. The top five issues for parents whose children do not currently walk or bike to school are listed in the graph below.

Distance from Home
to School, 81%
Safety of
intersections and
crossings, 57% Speed of Traffic
Along Route, 54% Time, 53%
Concerned About
Violence or Crime,
52%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%

TOP FIVE ISSUES FOR

SEASIDE MIDDLE PARENTS
Packet Page 118
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 84 CHAPTER 3: SCHOOL-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROFILES
Current Infrastructure Conditions
Motorist Conditions
• Seaside Middle is located on Coe Avenue and is physically separated from the main residential areas of Seaside. The two options for accessing Seaside Middle School by car are General Jim Moore Boulevard from the east and Coe Avenue/Monterey Road from the west. This configuration leads to heavy school drop-off traffic on Coe Avenue and at the intersection of Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard. • The school drop-off loop is heavily congested before and after school. • School drop-off also takes place on Military Avenue and Peralta Avenue. There is a gate that blocks vehicle traffic at the end of Peralta Avenue, which connects to the residential areas of Seaside. This area is congested before and after school. • There is a second school driveway on the west side of campus that is designated for bus drop-off only.

Pedestrian Conditions
• There is continuous sidewalk on the north side of Coe Avenue, and on Military Avenue, Peralta Avenue, and other residential roadways south of the school. There is continuous sidewalk on both sides of General Jim Moore Boulevard near the school. • There are yellow high-visibility crosswalks across both school driveway entrances and across Coe Avenue at Peralta Avenue.
• Most students live south of the school, and most pedestrians walk to the school through the gate on Peralta Avenue. The crosswalk on Coe Avenue at Peralta Avenue is heavily used by pedestrians.
• There are transverse crosswalks at the intersection of Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard.
• There are several informal dirt paths between Coe Avenue and the school that students use to get to school.

Bicycling Conditions
• There are Class II bike lanes on Coe Avenue between General Jim Moore Boulevard and Monterey Road.
• There are Class II bike lanes on General Jim Moore Boulevard between the Seaside city limits and Coe Avenue, and a Class I multi-use path on the east side of General Jim Moore Boulevard between Coe Avenue and Normandy Road.

Packet Page 119
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 85 CHAPTER 3: SCHOOL-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROFILES
Location Issue Recommendation Timeframe
South side of school
between drop-off
driveway and Coe
Avenue (approximately
350 feet north of Coe
Avenue)
Students use dirt paths to reach
campus.

Upgrade informal pathway to Class I
multi-use facility. Medium
School parking lot Missing curb ramps. Signage does
not meet current standards.

Upgrade crosswalk to yellow highvisibility raised crosswalk. Install ADAcompliant curb ramps. Update speed hump sign to be MUTCD-compliant.

Medium
School campus Current drop-off loop very congested
and inefficient.

Create new roadway adjacent to school
buildings to connect school driveway with
bus drop-off area and add new dropoff area adjacent to school buildings.

Restrict current drop-off loop to bus dropoff and staff parking.

Long
Coe Avenue at General
Jim Moore Boulevard
Intersection is inefficient and
congested before school. Study options to install roundabout. Medium Coe Avenue at Paralta
Avenue
Intersection is inefficient, with drivers
unable to cross due to constant
stream of pedestrians.

Consider a roundabout. Use crossing
guard to control the flow of pedestrian
and vehicle traffic.

Long
Coe Avenue at Paralta
Avenue
Bollard blocks bicycle and pedestrian
access.

Remove bollard to allow for easier bike
and pedestrian access. Short
Coe Avenue between
Dahlia Drive and
General Jim Moore
Boulevard
Cars encroaching in eastbound bike
lane as they wait to enter school.

Remove bike lane from south side of
road. Install two-way separated bikeway
on north side of road.

Long
Military Avenue at
western leg of Peralta
Avenue
Substantial drop-off traffic on
Military Avenue and Peralta Avenue.

Conditions are chaotic. Forcing traffic
to run in only one direction would
make drop-off movements more
consistent.

Install diverters to prevent eastbound
traffic on Military Avenue east of Peralta
Avenue.

Medium
Peralta Avenue at Coe
Avenue
Drivers drop students off in deadend portion of Peralta Avenue, which creates hazardous conditions.

Block Peralta Avenue north of Military
Avenue. Install landscaped trail that
allows for emergency access to Coe
Avenue.

Medium
– – See citywide recommendations for
Military Avenue. –
Recommended Infrastructure Improvements around Seaside Middle The following table lists recommendations for Seaside Middle, and the following map shows their locations in relation to the school.

Packet Page 120
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 86 CHAPTER 3: SCHOOL-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROFILES
Packet Page 121
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 114 CHAPTER 4: CITYWIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Location Recommendation Timeframe
2nd Avenue between Gigling Road
and existing Class I path just north
of Lightfighter Drive
Install Class I shared-use path. Medium
All schools Install secure bike parking. Short
All schools Where feasible, reduce speed limit around schools. Medium All schools
Conduct comprehensive school signage inventory and install missing signage. Upgrade stop signs near schools to flashing stop signs. Ensure that sign placement maintains ADA access on sidewalks.

Medium
All schools
Review ADA accessibility guidelines and construct accessible paths between public right-of-way and school entrances where needed.

Long
All schools Install RRFBs at all uncontrolled crosswalks near schools. Add curb extensions or center medians at all offset crosswalks. Medium Broadway Avenue/Obama Way east
of Fremont Boulevard
Road diet to install protected bikeways or buffered bike lanes.

Install protected bikeway on north side of Broadway between Yosemite and Mescal. Study feasibility of Safe Routes to Schools corridor treatments, especially near school.

Long
Chapel Drive between Normandy
Road and Gigling Road
Construct FORTAG major spur trail in utility right-of-way adjacent to Chapel Drive. Consider fire station project in final design. Long East Seaside between Highland
Elementary and Ord Terrace
Elementary
Explore feasibility of pathway connecting Highland Elementary and Ord Terrace Elementary on city parks, school property, and public roadways.

Medium
Fremont Boulevard between
Military Avenue and Canyon Del Rey
Boulevard
Study options for enhanced bike facility. If not feasible, install Class II bike lanes and a buffer where possible. Long
General Jim Moore Boulevard
between Divarty Street and
Normandy Road
Install Class I shared-use path. Long
Gigling Road between 6th Division
Road and 7th Avenue
Install Class II bike lanes between 6th Division Road and General Jim Moore, and Class IV bike facility on south side of Gigling Road between General Jim Moore and 7th Avenue.

Medium
Chapter 4: Citywide Recommendations
The infrastructure recommendations in this Plan are broken into two categories: citywide recommendations, which serve multiple schools or address larger corridor-wide issues, and school-specific recommendations, which address the area immediately around each school. Citywide recommendations can be found below, and school-specific recommendations are given in chapter 3.

Seaside Citywide Recommendations
Packet Page 122
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 115 CHAPTER 4: CITYWIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Gigling Road between General Jim
Moore and 7th Avenue
Install trail crossing over Gigling Road at terminus of FORTAG trail. Construct meandering trail on north side of Gigling Road, per Campus Town development plans.

Long
Kimball Avenue between Fremont
Boulevard and Mescal Street
Study feasibility of Safe Routes to Schools corridor treatments, especially near school. Medium
LaSalle Avenue Study feasibility of Safe Routes to Schools corridor treatments, especially near school. Medium
Mescal Street/Plumas Avenue
between Hilby Avenue and Tweed
Street
Install separated bikeway. Install sidewalks to close sidewalk gaps.

Long
Military Avenue Study feasibility of Safe Routes to Schools connector treatments, especially near school. Medium
Mingo Avenue between Noche
Buena and Yosemite
Study feasibility of Safe Routes to Schools connector treatments, especially near school. Medium
Monterey Road between Buna Road
and 6th Division Road Install Class II bike lanes. Long Noche Buena Street near Seaside
High and Del Rey Woods Elementary
Study feasibility of Safe Routes to Schools corridor treatments near schools. Medium
Ord Grove Avenue and Hacienda
Street
Study feasibility of Safe Routes to Schools connector treatments, especially near school. Medium
Parker Flats Cut Off Road between
Gigling Road and Normandy Road.

Study traffic volumes and consider removing center line and installing advisory bike lanes. Medium
Sonoma Avenue from Mescal Street
to Canyon Del Rey Boulevard
Study feasibility of Safe Routes to Schools corridor treatments, especially near school. Medium
Waring Street and Flores Street
between Plumas Avenue and
Military Avenue
Study feasibility of Safe Routes to Schools connector treatments, especially near school. Medium
Yosemite Street between Military
Avenue and Hilby Avenue
Study feasibility of Safe Routes to Schools corridor treatments, especially near school. Explore converting Yosemite Street to one-way between Mingo Avenue and La Salle Avenue.

Medium
Packet Page 123
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 116 CHAPTER 4: CITYWIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Packet Page 124
Appendices
Packet Page 125
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 329 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Parent Survey Reports - Seaside Middle School
Parent Survey Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Seaside Middle Set ID: 18081
School Group: CTPG2018_MPUSD Month and Year Collected: November 2018 School Enrollment: 0 Date Report Generated: 07/02/2019
% Range of Students Involved in SRTS: Don't Know Tags: Middle School Number of Questionnaires Distributed: 0 Number of Questionnaires Analyzed for Report: 188
This report contains information from parents about their children's trip to and from school. The report also reflects parents' perceptions regarding whether walking and bicycling to school is appropriate for their child. The data used in this report were collected using the Survey about Walking and Biking to School for Parents form from the National Center for Safe Routes to School.

Sex of children for parents that provided information
Packet Page 126
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 330 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Grade levels of children represented in survey
Grade levels of children represented in survey
Grade in School
Responses per
grade
Number Percent
2 1 1%
6 82 46%
7 56 31%
8 39 22%
9 1 1%
No response: 0
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Page 2 of 13 ends

SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 331 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school Distance between
home and school Number of children Percent
Less than 1/4 mile 7 5%
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 8 6%
1/2 mile up to 1 mile 23 16%
1 mile up to 2 miles 52 37%
More than 2 miles 52 37%
Don't know or No response: 46
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Page 3 of 13 ends

SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 332 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school
Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school
Time of Trip Number
of Trips Walk Bike SchoolBus
Family
Vehicle Carpool Transit Other
Morning 186 5% 3% 16% 73% 4% 0% 0%
Afternoon 180 19% 2% 22% 47% 5% 4% 0.6%
No Response Morning: 2
No Response Afternoon: 8
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Page 4 of 13 ends

SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 333 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school

Page 5 of 13 ends

SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 334 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school School Arrival
Distance
Number
within
Distance
Walk Bike School
Bus
Family
Vehicle Carpool Transit Other
Less than 1/4 mile 7 14% 0% 0% 86% 0% 0% 0%
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 8 13% 0% 25% 63% 0% 0% 0%
1/2 mile up to 1 mile 22 0% 0% 14% 82% 5% 0% 0%
1 mile up to 2 miles 52 8% 6% 6% 77% 4% 0% 0%
More than 2 miles 52 2% 4% 23% 65% 6% 0% 0%
Don't know or No response: 47
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

School Departure
Distance
Number
within
Distance
Walk Bike School
Bus
Family
Vehicle Carpool Transit Other
Less than 1/4 mile 7 43% 0% 14% 43% 0% 0% 0%
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 8 13% 0% 25% 63% 0% 0% 0%
1/2 mile up to 1 mile 22 18% 0% 18% 55% 9% 0% 0%
1 mile up to 2 miles 47 23% 4% 15% 53% 2% 2% 0%
More than 2 miles 52 8% 4% 27% 50% 8% 2% 2%
Don't know or No response: 52
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Page 6 of 13 ends

SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 335 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school
Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school
Asked Permission? Number of Children Less than
1/4 mile
1/4 mile
up to 1/2
mile
1/2 mile
up to 1
mile
1 mile up
to 2 miles
More
than 2
miles
Yes 78 86% 75% 52% 60% 44%
No 64 14% 25% 48% 40% 56%
Don't know or No response: 46
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Page 7 of 13 ends

SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 336 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Issues reported to affect the decision to not allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who do not walk or bike to/from school Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school

Page 8 of 13 ends

SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 337 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school Issue Child does not walk/bike to
school
Child walks/bikes to
school
Distance 79% 52%
Safety of Intersections and Crossings 52% 56%
Speed of Traffic Along Route 52% 33%
Violence or Crime 50% 37%
Weather or climate 50% 44%
Time 49% 41%
Amount of Traffic Along Route 47% 26%
Child's Participation in After School
Programs
31% 15%
Sidewalks or Pathways 29% 52%
Crossing Guards 29% 15%
Adults to Bike/Walk With 26% 15%
Convenience of Driving 24% 15%
Number of Respondents per Category 123 27
No response: 38
Note:
--Factors are listed from most to least influential for the 'Child does not walk/bike to school' group. --Each column may sum to > 100% because respondent could select more than issue --The calculation used to determine the percentage for each issue is based on the 'Number of Respondents per Category' within the respective columns (Child does not walk/bike to school and Child walks/bikes to school.) If comparing percentages between the two columns, please pay particular attention to each column's number of respondents because the two numbers can differ dramatically.

Page 9 of 13 ends

SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 338 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Parents' opinions about how much their child's school encourages or discourages walking and biking to/from school
Parents' opinions about how much fun walking and biking to/from school is for their child

Page 10 of 13 ends

SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 339 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Parents' opinions about how healthy walking and biking to/from school is for their child

Page 11 of 13 ends

SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 340 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Comments Section
SurveyID Comment
1646150 propongo el caminar por que es muy bueno pero mi hija no por que vivo muy retirado de la escuela. 1669102 I left 12 and 13 blank because I don't have the knowledge to answer 1644805 En lo personal no me ciento segura que mis hijos cominen, por la inseguridad en las calles para los ninos. 1660067 School is too far for an 11 year old to walk alone at 7am. Walking would take 40+ minutes each way. 1645098 My child doesn't own a bike.
1669072 I would not allow my son to walk because there are many dangers out on the streets in present day and my son is only 11 years old. Our home is also far from the school. And I am a mom who has become distrustful - perhaps I am overprotective.
1646112 We are a family of 5, 4 kids and 1 adult.
1661208 I don't know why the highest grade level completed affects the outcome of the survey :/ 1659407 Child refuses to walk/bike - lazy
1669089 I believe that my child is too young for walking/biking by herself, and I have no other adults to go with her.
1646166 In my opinion it's a good idea to walk from school to home because kids can have the opportunity to practice walking as an exercise.
1660861 Traffic, walking, biking would all be safer with a traffic signal at Coe Ave and Gen Jim Moore. 1645119 Me gustaría que pudieron mi nino ir a la escuela en bicicleta en grupos para tener mas cuidado en supervisión de un adulto.
1659406 Traffic, walking, biking would all be safer with a traffic signal at COE Ave and Gen. Jim Moore. 1669086 School is really far from our home and the bus stop is at an unsafe place - a lot of drugs and homeless folks around there and it is a lonely zone (not many others around for safety). 1669107 The speed limit on Gen Jim Moore Rd is posted at 40 mph. Parents taking and picking up their kids go usually 50-60 mph. They have caused me to not let my child walk/bike to Seaside Middle School. 1660862 Child refuses to walk/bike - very lazy
1669108 I am not against children walking to school but if adults can take them and pick them up that would be preferable. For the safety of my children and all others. 1646176 Mis hijas no vienen en bicicleta porque vivimos asta Monterrey y también porque muchas personas no respetan las senales de transito y da un poco de miedo. pero síes muy sano acer ejersio. 1659513 Sorry questions 10 and 11 are unclear to me for how to answer, but I don't like to let my son walk or bike to school, it is unsafe.

Page 12 of 13 ends

1659258 Thank you for this survey and for your concern for our kids' safety.

Packet Page 137
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 374 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Student Tally Reports - Seaside Middle School
Student Travel Tally Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Seaside Middle Set ID: 27377
School Group: CTPG2018_MPUSD Month and Year Collected: November 2018 School Enrollment: 0 Date Report Generated: 07/09/2019
% of Students reached by SRTS activities: Tags: Middle School Number of Classrooms
Included in Report: 6
This report contains information from your school's classrooms about students' trip to and from school. The data used in this report were collected using the in-class Student Travel Tally questionnaire from the National Center for Safe Routes to School.

Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison
Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison
Number
of Trips Walk Bike SchoolBus
Family
Vehicle Carpool Transit Other
Morning 266 5% 2% 10% 77% 6% 0% 0.8%
Afternoon 260 16% 1% 11% 60% 8% 1% 2%
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Packet Page 138
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 375 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day
Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day
Number of
Trips Walk Bike School Bus FamilyVehicle Carpool Transit Other Tuesday AM 125 6% 2% 11% 71% 10% 0% 0%
Tuesday PM 122 22% 2% 11% 50% 11% 2% 2%
Wednesday AM 71 3% 1% 7% 80% 6% 0% 3%
Wednesday PM 69 13% 0% 9% 68% 7% 1% 1%
Thursday AM 70 3% 3% 10% 83% 1% 0% 0%
Thursday PM 69 9% 1% 13% 71% 4% 0% 1%
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Page 2 of 3 ends

SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 376 APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY DATA
Travel Mode by Weather Conditions
Travel Mode by Weather Condition
Weather
Condition
Number
of Trips Walk Bike SchoolBus
Family
Vehicle Carpool Transit Other
Sunny 57 0% 2% 9% 86% 4% 0% 0%
Rainy 317 14% 2% 10% 62% 9% 0.9% 2%
Overcast 145 3% 0.7% 11% 80% 6% 0% 0%
Snow 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Page 3 of 3 ends

SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 421 APPENDIX 3 - PUBLIC COMMENTS

LOCATION PROBLEM SOLUTION COMMENT MEETING

COMMENT
AUDIT

COMMENT
Coe at Gen. Jim
Moore
No one used crosswalk X
Coe Ave speeding x
Coe Ave Cars driving in bike lane Class 1 2-way bike
path on north side of
street?
X
Coe Ave School sign hidden by tree branches X
Coe Ave No streetlights, dark in the winter
for kids
Coe Ave at school
stop sign
Some dropoff happening here
Coe Ave near golf
course
Used to walk in dirt on side of Coe
Ave.
x
Coe EB Cars backed up pretty far on Coe.

Some cars crossing the double
yellow to make left turn into school.

Takes everyone a long time to get
through the stop sign @ school
entrance
Extended left turn
pocket? Crossing
guard to control
pedestrian flow?
X
Crosswalk from
Peralta to school
Kids run across for palatero X
Crosswalk from
Peralta to school
Main ped access to school Ped crossing
control? Intermittant
ped crossing makes
car travel through
intersection very
slow.

X
Crosswalk from
Peralta to school
Cars entering crosswalk while kids
are still crossing
X
East side of Gen.

Jim
Future development will affect traffic on
Gen. Jim
X
Eastside Parkway A lot more traffic through streets all go to 4 schools. How will it impact
Seaside? Note: Eastside Parkway is
very far out, review growth plans
x
Eucalyptus Not great to bike. Fast cars no bike
lane
x
Eucalytus Rd New housing will carry lots more
traffic from Salinas
Future East-West parkway? x
Gen Jim Kids biking on sidewalk X
Gen Jim at Coe Roundabout? X
Gen Jim south of
Coe
U-turns and parent parking in bike
lane
X
Gen. Jim Moore Bring kids down Gen. Jim Moore.

Room for pedestrians
Note: We think this means that Gen.

Jim is safer route, but not main route
for many students
x
General Bus takes some kids from farther away x
General Jim Moore Bike lane with lots of traffic x
Public Comments - Seaside Middle School Data
Packet Page 141
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 422 APPENDIX 3 - PUBLIC COMMENTS
General Jim Moore
at Coe
Congestion Roundabout to keep
cars moving
x
Military very steep 2 lanes kids bike and walk on Military x Military at Hacienda Better drop-off location. 30-45 minutes to get out and in
x
Military at Peralta Lots of school dropoff here. U-turns, parent cars parked, kids running
across intersection, resident
driveways blocked
Very few ways for people who live
south of Coe to get to school entrance
- closest access point is San Pablo to
Gen. Jim. It makes sense that parents
are dropping off on Military
X
Military Ave Neighborhood street dropoff of kids
to avoid Coe
x
Military Ave Speeding in WB direction X
Military Ave No curb ramps, broken sidewalk X
Military, Peralta, etc. Too much traffic on neighborhood streets
Get cars off side streets x
Note: We think
this is about the
crosswalk across
Coe into school
Lights - across way to the school -
for the safety of the children
x
Note: We think
this is about the
crosswalk across
Coe into school -
kids coming from
Military
Kids that walk through the fence; all
end up crossing
x
Ord Grove Less steep, steady climb x
Ord Grove at Lassen No crosswalk busy street x
Ord Grove to
Hacienda
Best bike route x
Park Ave dead end at cemetary x
Peralta at Military No stop sign X
San Pablo Ave Commute alternative #1 - cut-through
traffic
x
School driveway on
Coe, west of main
dropoff area
Currently used for bus dropoff. Could
this be additional parent dropoff? How
to make sure buses don't get stuck
in traffic? There is currently a dirt
turnaround that could be improved.

X
School parking lot Staff stationed in front of school is very helpful
X
School parking lot 2 lanes of dropoff - kids running
across path of traffic
X
School parking lot Some parents use staff parking for
dropoff, kids run across dropoff
lanes
Make crosswalk in
parking lot more
visible
X
Seaside Middle
main entrance
Lots of traffic. Need crosswalk with
lights to advise drivers that kids are
crossing
Open another entrance to school to
reduce traffic
x
SW corner of Gen
Jim/Coe
Kids dropped off here (bus dropoff?) x
Packet Page 142
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 423 APPENDIX 3 - PUBLIC COMMENTS

LOCATION PROBLEM SOLUTION COMMENT
Dirt trail adjacent to
Gen. Jim
Could be used
Citywide Bike racks at all schools
Density of students by Fremont - maybe
another school is needed?
General We need public restrooms + drinking
fountains at locations along walking/bike
routes and at destinations.

General Notice: no community centers?
Fort Ord near
Marshal
Need more schools if developed
General Could fiber internet be included? Don't think
many Seaside/Marina schools have
General Where are the fields? Why are they in such
poor condition in all of Seaside/Marina?
General Are the parks and trails connected to
schools? Why not?
Parks The string of parks (Havana-Soliz, LincolnCunningham, Stewart) would make a safe and scenic route for walking - if parks are
maintainted
General Warning signs about traffic rules
Public Comments - Citywide (General Comments)
Packet Page 143
SEASIDE & MARINA SAFE WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL: COMPLETE STREETS PLAN P. 425 APPENDIX 3 - PUBLIC COMMENTS
Email Seaside Middle + all
Marina schools
"The few times I’ve made the mistake of driving General Jim to Canyon Del Rey, the Seaside Middle School intersection backup has drivers in the bike lane or even one wheel up on the sidewalk trying to shortcut around the wait.

Having said that, I realize that in my mind the primary contributor to bike danger for me and for kids going to school in Marina is the “droppers.” Parents driving their kids to Crumpton, Marina Vista, and Los Arboles. Hurried, distracted drivers, many on the phone. Doors opening into the roadway. Double-parkers. Jay-walkers and Jay-runners. It’s pretty nuts, and I try to route around it. If my kid was riding to any of those locations, I’d tell him to ride on the sidewalk, no matter what others think about that. What will happen when they open upper Carmel when they build-out Sea Haven? There’s no budget for bussing any more, and a we’ve become a fearful culture where the media generated perception of the risk (abduction etc.) is way out of line with actual statistics. That has to be part of the solution. Get the kids out of those cars.

Group ride, group walk. Something different. How can we incentivize that? What is the carrot, what is the stick? Someone on Nextdoor mentioned the need for cross-walks to get to Patton Parkway. Crosswalk, yes. Plus we need to bring back that stop sign. A three-way stop at the new California intersect. Probably in the plans I’d guess." Email Seaside High +
Marina High
"Seaside High School
- Has no yellow ""school zone"" signs on noche buena, military or ord grove - Cross Walks at Noche Buena/Military and Noche Buena/Ord Grove are not painted to correlate with appropriate flow of pedestrian/student traffic walking to school. - Military and Noche Buena - extremely dangerous. The stop sign is ran a lot going down Military. Noche Buena Traffic is not looking at Military traffic they are heading to the high school.
- I am happy to personally show you the concerns. I have seen kids almost hit, my personal kids have almost been hit and I have known of multiple car accidents on Military and Noche Buena.
- Ord Ave exit at freeway (California/hwy 1/fremont).
- no side walk
- no school zone
- kids crossing to fast food
- fire road dangerous
- stairs lead to softball field then nowhere - no lights - this is an attractive nuisance area
Marina High School
- Sidewalks from Imjim - not pleasant or safe for students - Imjim - crossing from 2nd street: path to walk to high school. An experience - would any adult want to try or do on a daily basis 7:30am and/or 4pm. multiple concerns - safety, signs, painted school zone/speed limit signs and painted crossing lines, lighting etc."
Email - Terry
Siegrist, City of
Marina Recreation
Crumpton "My comments in my absence today regarding the walking audit at Crumpton this morning:
- Concerns have been raised regarding street parking back up during drop off and pick up times.
- The back up at the drop off and pick up area in front of the school during morning and afterschool pick up.
- The limited parking and traffic going in and out of the parking lot area. - Acess to the MST bus stop.

Crumpton is the starting point for the city afterschool daily walking pick up to the community center just an info item as that walking route as been requested to be considered in each school audit. Lastly in the loss of funding for the SRO this year all school related traffic saftey issues are going unchecked and the reqular morning and afterschool revolving traffic monitoring at all the Marina schools sites has been eliminated due to the absence of the funding for the SRO." Packet Page 144
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Appendix D
Traffic Counts and Intersection Volume Summaries
Packet Page 145
City of Seaside
Intersection Control Evaluation
Traffic Data
INT-1.1 Gate Closed Volume Summary Template.xlsx
2019
Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 1 76 247 0 229 0 16 0 60 306 1
PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Truck % 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019
Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 44 0 86 0 21 0 11 80 0
PHF 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 Truck % 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
2030
Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 1 80 261 0 229 0 16 0 63 323 1
PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2030
Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 46 0 86 0 21 0 12 85 0
PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
2040
Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 1 85 275 0 229 0 16 0 67 341 1
PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2040
Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 49 0 86 0 21 0 12 89 0
PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 6 283
21 0 3 52
AM
INT-1.1: Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue - Gate Closed
3/9/2020
Scenario 1 - Existing Year (2019)

AM NB WB SB EB
NOTE: Minimum PHF used in operations analysis is =0.70
PM
WB
13 1
PM NB
6 283
NB

NB AM SB EB
13 Scenario 2 - Design Year (2030)
13 1 6 283
WB
Scenario 3 - Horizon Year (2040)
21 0 3 52
PM
Source:
21 0 3 52

WB SB EB
WB
SB EB
SB EB

WB SB EB
NB
NB
1 OF 1 Turning Movements & AADT
Packet Page 146
U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Total
1 0 0 1 0 1 76 247 0 229 0 16 0 60 306 1 938
1 0 0 1 0 1 81 262 0 229 0 16 0 64 324 1 979
1 0 0 1 0 1 85 275 0 229 0 16 0 67 341 1 1016
Start 2019
End 2040
No. of Years = 21

U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R
RTDM ADT 2015 1162
RTDM ADT 2040 1730
Calculated Linear Growth 2.33%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.97% 1.97% 1.97% 1.97% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.937% 1.937% 1.937% 1.937% 1.44% Existing 2019 1 0 0 1 0 1 76 247 0 229 0 16 0 60 306 1 938 Horizon Year 2040 1 0 0 1 0 1 107 349 0 229 0 16 0 84 430 1 1221 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 102 0 0 0 0 0 24 124 0 283

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 41.43% 41.43% 0.00% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00% 40.67% 40.67% 0.00% 30.14% Start 2019
End 2040
No. of Years = 21

U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.540% 0.540% 0.540% 0.540% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.540% 0.540% 0.540% 0.540% 0.397% Maximum Linear Growth Rate: 0.54%
1 0 0 1 0 1 76 247 0 229 0 16 0 60 306 1 938
1 0 0 1 0 1 85 275 0 229 0 16 0 67 341 1 1016
0 0 0 0 0 0 9 28 0 0 0 0 0 7 35 0 78

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.34% 11.34% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.34% 11.34% 0.00% 8.33% INT-1.1: Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue - Gate Closed
3/9/2020
AM AM
NB WB
Scenario
Existing 2019
Year 2030 (Linear)
SB EB
AM Linear Growth Curve

NB WB SB EB
Horizon Year 2040
AM
CALCULATED ANNUAL GROWTH RATE Year 2019 to Year 2040
Scenario Total
0 592 0 570
0 884 0 846
Linear Growth
% Increase

0.000% 1.973% 0.000% 1.937%
AM
LINEAR ANNUAL GROWTH RATE LIMITED TO 0.54%: Year 2019 to 2040 Total
AM Linear Growth Curve
NB WB
Scenario
Linear Growth
SB EB
% Increase
Existing 2019
Horizon Year 2040
Difference
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Intersection Volume
Year
AM Linear Growth
Existing Year 2019 Volume
Design Year 2030 Volume
Horizon Year 2040 Volume
Packet Page 147
U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Total
0 0 0 0 0 0 120 44 0 86 0 21 0 11 80 0 362
0 0 0 0 0 0 127 47 0 86 0 21 0 12 85 0 377
0 0 0 0 0 0 134 49 0 86 0 21 0 12 89 0 391
Start 2019
End 2040
No. of Years = 21

U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R
RTDM ADT 2015 1162
RTDM ADT 2040 1730
Calculated Linear Growth 2.33%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.97% 1.97% 1.97% 1.97% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.937% 1.937% 1.937% 1.937% 1.38% Existing 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 44 0 86 0 21 0 11 80 0 362 Horizon Year 2040 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 62 0 86 0 21 0 15 113 0 467 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 18 0 0 0 0 0 4 33 0 105

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 41.43% 41.43% 0.00% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00% 40.67% 40.67% 0.00% 29.00% Start 2019
End 2040
No. of Years = 21

U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.540% 0.540% 0.540% 0.540% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.540% 0.540% 0.540% 0.540% 0.380% Maximum Linear Growth Rate: 0.54%
0 0 0 0 0 0 120 44 0 86 0 21 0 11 80 0 362
0 0 0 0 0 0 134 49 0 86 0 21 0 12 89 0 391
0 0 0 0 0 0 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 29

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.34% 11.34% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.34% 11.34% 0.00% 7.99%

WB SB EB
INT-1.1: Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue - Gate Closed
3/9/2020
PM PM
Scenario
Existing 2019
Year 2030 (Linear)
NB
Total
PM Linear Growth Curve
NB
Horizon Year 2040

WB SB EB
Scenario
0 PM
CALCULATED ANNUAL GROWTH RATE Year 2019 to Year 2040
592 0 570
0 884 0
Linear Growth
% Increase
846

0.000% 1.973% 0.000% 1.937%

PM WB SB EB
LINEAR ANNUAL GROWTH RATE LIMITED TO 0.54%: Year 2019 to 2040 Total
PM Linear Growth Curve
Scenario
Linear Growth
NB
% Increase
Existing 2019
Horizon Year 2040
Difference
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Intersection Volume
Year
PM Linear Growth
Existing Year 2019 Volume
Design Year 2030 Volume
Horizon Year 2040 Volume
Packet Page 148
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-08614-1.1 Day:

City: Seaside Date:

AM 16 0 229 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 21 0 86 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 1 0 0 1 44 0 247
1 120 0 76
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
60 0 11 1 TEV 937 0 362 0 0 0 0
306 0 80 1 PHF 0.89 0.73
1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 0 0 0 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 0 0 1 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
0 Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
Coe Ave/Paralta Ave & Coe Ave
Tuesday
12/03/2019

CONTROL WESTBOUND
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
536 COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM) PEAK HOURSTotal Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
307
55 0
3-Way Stop (SB/EB/WB) Coe Ave EASTBOUND
Coe Ave/Paralta Ave
2 0
Coe Ave/Paralta Ave

SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

NORTHBOUND
166
0 Coe Ave
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
92 0 141
AM NOON PM2
0 0 1 0 0 6 0 2 19 0 1 12 0
0 1
0 0
40 0
19 264
0 12
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 0
3 0
0 0
000
000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 76
247
1 306
60 16
0229
001 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0 120
44 0
80 11 21
086
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
010
000 PMNOON AMAMNOON PM PMNOON AMAMNOON PM
Packet Page 149
City of Seaside
Intersection Control Evaluation
Traffic Data
INT-1.2 Volume Summary Template.xlsx
2019
Vehicles 11 215 375 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 906 121 0 95 0 427
PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Truck % 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% Pedestrians
Bicycles 1 0 0 0 1
2019
Vehicles 2 156 978 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 88 0 50 0 113
PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Truck % 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
2030
Vehicles 6 221 408 241 0 271 3 57 1 11 956 121 0 95 3 427 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
2030
Vehicles 1 162 672 213 0 228 3 10 0 62 319 90 0 50 3 113 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
2040
Vehicles 0 226 441 482 0 541 5 113 0 21 1005 121 0 95 5 427 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
2040
Vehicles 0 167 365 426 0 456 5 20 0 124 354 92 0 50 5 113 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
2 5 1
1 1
7 NB
NB

WB SB EB

WB SB EB
Scenario 2 - Design Year (2030)
AM
2 0 1 7
NB WB
7 Scenario 3 - Horizon Year (2040)
1 2 5 1
PM
0 0 0 1

NB WB SB
Source:

EB
1 AM
0 1
SB EB
NOTE: Minimum PHF used in operations analysis is =0.70
PM
PM
INT-1.2: General Jim Moore Blvd @ Coe Ave
3/18/2020
Scenario 1 - Existing Year (2019)
AM

NB WB SB EB

NB WB SB EB
1 OF 1
Packet Page 150
U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Total
11 215 375 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 906 121 0 95 0 427 2152
5 221 410 253 0 284 3 60 1 11 958 121 0 95 3 427 2852
0 226 441 482 0 541 5 113 0 21 1005 121 0 95 5 427 3482 Start 2019
End 2040
No. of Years = 21

U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R
Existing 2019 11 215 375 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 906 121 0 95 0 427 2152 Horizon Year 2040 0 226 441 482 0 541 5 113 0 21 1005 121 0 95 5 427 3482 Difference -11 11 66 482 0 541 5 113 -2 21 99 0 0 0 5 0 1330

0.00% 5.12% 17.60% 482.0% 0.00% 541.0% 5.00% 113.0% 0.00% 21.00% 10.93% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 61.80% -4.76% 0.24% 0.84% 2290% -4.76% 2571% 1000% 533.3% -4.76% 95.24% 0.52% 0.00% -4.76% 0.00% 19.05% 0.00% 2.94% INT-1.2: General Jim Moore Blvd @ Coe Ave
3/10/2020
AM AM
NB WB
Scenario
Existing 2019
Year 2030 (Linear)
SB EB
AM Linear Growth Curve

NB WB SB EB
Horizon Year 2040
AM
CALCULATED ANNUAL GROWTH RATE Year 2019 to Year 2040
Total
% Increase
Scenario
Linear Growth
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Intersection Volume
Year
AM Linear Growth
Existing Year 2019 Volume
Design Year 2030 Volume
Horizon Year 2040 Volume
Packet Page 151
U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Total
2 156 978 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 88 0 50 0 113 1670
1 162 657 224 0 239 3 11 0 65 320 90 0 50 3 113 1940
0 167 365 426 0 456 5 20 0 124 354 92 0 50 5 113 2177
Start 2019
End 2040
No. of Years = 21

U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R
Existing 2019 2 156 978 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 88 0 50 0 113 1670 Horizon Year 2040 0 167 365 426 0 456 5 20 0 124 354 92 0 50 5 113 2177 Difference -2 11 -613 426 0 456 5 20 0 124 71 4 0 0 5 0 507

0.00% 7.05% -62.7% 426.0% 0.00% 456.0% 5.00% 20.0% 0.00% 124.0% 25.09% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 30.36% Linear Growth -4.76% 0.34% -2.98% 2024% -4.76% 2167% 1000% 90.5% -4.76% 585.7% 1.19% 0.22% -4.76% 0.00% 19.05% 0.00% 1.45%

WB SB EB
INT-1.2: General Jim Moore Blvd @ Coe Ave
3/10/2020
PM PM
Scenario
Existing 2019
Year 2030 (Linear)
NB
Total
PM Linear Growth Curve
NB
Horizon Year 2040
% Increase

WB SB EB
Scenario
PM
CALCULATED ANNUAL GROWTH RATE Year 2019 to Year 2040
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Intersection Volume
Year
PM Linear Growth
Existing Year 2019 Volume
Design Year 2030 Volume
Horizon Year 2040 Volume
Packet Page 152
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Appendix E
Growth Rate Memo
Packet Page 153
Seaside ICE Analysis
ICE Screening Methodology Memorandum March 16, 2020
Memorandum
To: Misty Bradshaw, P.E.

City of Seaside

From: Sean Houck, P.E.

Kimley-Horn & Associates

Re: City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluations Studies Growth Rates: Broadway Corridor
Date: March 16, 2020
Linear per annum growth rates were developed for the eighteen project intersections using the Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM) created by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governance (AMBAG).

The growth rates from the model range from -0.71% to 6.72% per annum. The AMBAG 2018 Regional Growth Forecast provides anticipated growth rates for the City of Seaside between the years 2015 and 2040 based on historical growth data. The employment, housing, and population growth rates are summarized in Table 1. We recommend using the average city growth rate of 0.54% as the maximum growth rate for minor streets, and using the employment growth rate of 0.68% as the maximum growth rate for major arterials.

Table 1: AMBAG Report Growth Rates
The RTDM Model shows significant growth on the Broadway Corridor when analyzed as a four-lane road.

One of the proposed improvements on the Broadway corridor is a road diet, reducing it from a four-lane to a two-lane road. The model results vary significantly when the Broadway Corridor is changed from fourlane road to a two-lane road. Table 2 summarizes the RTDM Model and AMBAG Report growth rates for the Broadway Corridor. We recommend using the highest city growth rate of 0.68% as the maximum linear growth rate for the Broadway Corridor.

Table 2: Summary of RTDM Model Growth Rates Along Broadway Corridor Employment Growth Rate 0.68%
Housing Growth Rate 0.52%
Population Growth Rate 0.42%
Average 0.54%
AMBAG 2018 Regional Growth Forecast
WB EB 2040 V/C WB EB 2040 V/C GR 2040 V/C GR 2040 V/C
Broadway at Fremont 3.16% 2.30% 2.082 0.86% 0.79% 1.550 0.68% 1.522 0.54% 1.500 Broadway at Noche Buena 4.01% 3.84% 1.443 1.27% 1.72% 0.949 0.68% 0.866 0.54% 0.823 Broadway at Yosemite 5.77% 3.01% 1.367 1.17% 0.93% 0.746 0.68% 0.665 0.54% 0.644 Broadway at General Jim Moore - 3.39% 1.520 - 0.82% 1.545 0.68% 1.215 0.54% 1.184 Average 4.31% 3.13% 1.10% 1.07%
Employment GR Average GR
RTDM Model Growth Rates Along Broadway AMBAG 2018 Regional Growth Forecast 4-lane Corridor 2-lane Corridor
Intersection
Packet Page 154
Seaside ICE Analysis
ICE Screening Methodology Memorandum March 16, 2020
The following two TIA’s were used to determine the future volumes for the General Jim Moore and Lightfighter intersections, respectively:
- California Central Coast Veteran’s Cemetery (CCCVC) by Kimley-Horn o General Jim Moore Blvd at Coe Ave
- Campus Town Specific Plan TIA by FEHR & PEERS
o Lightfighter Drive at 1st Ave
o Lightfighter Drive at 2nd Ave
The future volumes provided in the Campus Town TIA were directly used at the Coe intersection, and used to balance the San Pablo Ave, Broadway Ave, and Hilby Ave intersections along General Jim Moore Blvd.

The RTDM Model was used as a base at the those three intersections. The projected future volumes from all southbound movements at Coe Ave were used to balance the southbound entering movements at San Pablo Ave, and the northbound entering movements at Coe Ave were used to balance the northbound exiting volumes at San Pablo Ave. The turning movements to and from the side streets were grown at their respective, capped model growth rates to remain consistent with the rest of the analysis.

Similarly, the future volumes provided in the CCCVC TIA were directly used at the 1st and 2nd Ave intersections, and used to balance the SR1 Ramp intersection along Lightfighter Drive. The growth rates used for the Lightfighter intersections from the CCCVC TIA result in the need for a triple lane roundabout at 1st Ave and 2nd Ave by the year 2040. Because the CCCVC TIA values were significantly higher than the RTDM Model, we recommend taking a phased build-out approach by designing for a two-lane roundabout and allowing room for expansion if future traffic growth necessitates.

A summary of the volume growth rates and sources for each intersection is provided in Table 3.

Packet Page 155
Seaside ICE Analysis
ICE Screening Methodology Memorandum March 16, 2020
Table 3: Summary of Growth Rates Used for All Intersections

Assumptions:

1. Lightfighter Corridor Volumes per the CCCVC TIA.

2. General Jim Moore Boulevard Volumes balanced between the AMBAG Model Growth rates, the Campus Town TIA, and the Broadway Road Diet.

3. Fremont Boulevard Volumes per the AMBAG Model.

North-South Arterial East-West Arterial NB WB SB EB
- - - 0.54%

0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.00%
- - - 0.54%
- - - -
- - - - 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
- - - - 0.01% 0.68% 0.00% 0.68%

0.68% 0.68% 0.68% 0.68%

0.00% 0.46% 0.10% 0.30%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40%

0.00% 0.54%

0.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.54%

0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54%
Growth Rate
Volumes determined from TIA
volumes at Int. 1.2 - - - 0.68% Model, Capped at Employment Growth Rate of 0.68% Volumes determined from TIA
volumes at Int. 1.2

0.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.54%
- - - -
Volumes determined from TIA
volumes at Int. 1.2
Model, Capped at Employment
Growth Rate of 0.68%

0.36% 0.68% 0.00% 0.68%

0.00% 0.54%

2.9 San Pablo Ave

2.10 San Pablo Ave

2.11 Hilby Ave

2.7a Lightfighter Dr

2.7b Lightfighter Dr

2.8 Lightfighter Dr

2.4 Broadway Ave

2.5 Broadway Ave

2.6 Military Ave

2.1 Ord Grove Ave

2.2 La Salle Ave

2.3 1.1 Coe Ave

1.2 Coe Ave

1.3 Broadway Ave
Int
Paralta Ave
General Jim Moore
Blvd
General Jim Moore
Blvd
SR 1 Ramps
Second Ave
Yosemite St
General Jim Moore
Blvd
Model, Capped at average City
growth of 0.54%
Model, Capped at average City
growth of 0.54%
Model, Capped at average City
growth of 0.54%
La Salle Ave

1.4 La Salle Ave

1.5 Sonoma Ave

1.6 Broadway Ave
Yosemite St
Yosemite St
Fremont Blvd
Noche Buena St
Noche Buena St
Growth Rate Source
General Jim Moore
Blvd
North-South Arterial
(Major/Minor)
East-West Arterial
(Major/Minor)
Near year and future year volumes from TIA,
no growth rates used
Model, Capped at average City growth of 0.54%
Model, Capped at average City growth of 0.54%
Model, Capped at average City growth of 0.54%
Model, Capped at Employment Growth Rate of 0.68%
Model, Capped at average City growth of 0.54%
Model, Capped at average City growth of 0.54%
Model, Capped at Employment Growth Rate of 0.68%
Model, Capped at Employment Growth Rate of 0.68%
Model, Capped at average City growth of 0.54%
Near year and future year volumes from TIA,
no growth rates used
Near year and future year volumes from TIA,
no growth rates used
Balanced using TIA and near year volumes
Model, Capped at average City growth of 0.54%
Fremont Blvd
Noche Buena St
Yosemite St
Noche Buena St
First Ave
Packet Page 156
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Appendix F
Full City of Seaside ICE Study
Packet Page 157
City of Seaside ICE Study
Phase 1 Intersection Control Evaluation
March 26, 2021 Prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates
Packet Page 158
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
EXECUTIVE Summary

Page 2 of 103 ends

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of conducting an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) is to provide a holistic approach to the consideration and evaluation of intersection control alternatives. This ICE seeks to evaluate impacts to all intersection users (e.g., pedestrian, bicycle, auto, transit) to identify the most effective and comprehensive access alternatives.

This document will provide:
• An objective assessment and evaluation of traffic control strategies and options • Data driven engineering analysis of intersection Operations and Safety • Qualitative driven analysis of location-specific benefits and restrictions • A benefit-cost comparison of intersection control alternatives

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Seaside, through this study, has developed a Citywide Intersection Control Evaluation of high priority intersections to evaluate the benefit of roundabouts or other alternative control devices to traditional signalized intersections. The ICE will serve as a decision-making process and framework to evaluate intersection control alternatives using a performance-based approach to engineering and investment decisions.

Overall, the purpose of the Citywide Intersection Control Evaluation is to:
• Provide consistent documentation that improves transparency of transportation investment decisions • Implementation of safer, more balanced, and cost-effective solutions • Emphasis on objective performance measures for consistent comparisons • Assess the benefit/cost of making intersection control improvements at high priority intersections • Identify effective intersection control strategies and alternative treatments, strategies, and configurations for particular conditions
• Prioritize intersection improvements based on calculated benefit/cost ratio • Emphasize context, key performance outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability instead of the historical reliance on intersection control warrants
• Promote and mainstream the consideration of innovative access strategies that are proven but underutilized, such as a roundabout Packet Page 159
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 3 of 103 ends

OVERALL INTERSECTION SUMMARY

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY
Eighteen intersections were evaluated in the City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study. The existing intersection control as well one or two alternative controls were evaluated at each intersection. The legend (right) displays the symbols used throughout this report to represent the existing and proposed control types. The Intersection Control Alternative Summary table (below) is a summary of the alternatives evaluated and resulting recommendations for each intersection.

Intersection Control Alternative Summary
Intersection Existing
Control
Evaluated
Alternatives Recommendation
INT 1.1 Coe Ave at Paralta Ave (Gate Closed)
INT 1.1 Coe Ave at Paralta Ave (Gate Open)
INT 1.2 Coe Ave at GJM Blvd
INT 1.3 Broadway Ave at GJM Blvd
INT 1.4 La Salle Ave at Yosemite St
INT 1.5 Sonoma Ave at Yosemite St
INT 1.6 Broadway Ave at Fremont Blvd
INT 2.1 Ord Grove at Noche Buena St
INT 2.2 La Salle Ave at Noche Buena St
INT 2.3 La Salle Ave at Fremont Blvd
INT 2.4 Broadway Ave at Noche Buena St
INT 2.5 Broadway Ave at Yosemite St
INT 2.6 Military Ave at Noche Buena St
INT 2.7a Lightfighter Dr at First Ave
INT 2.7b Lightfighter Dr at SR-1 NB Ramps RAMPS
Packet Page 160
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 4 of 103 ends

Intersection Existing
Control
Evaluated
Alternatives Recommendation
INT 2.8 Lightfighter Dr at Second Ave
INT 2.9 Mescal St a Yosemite St
INT 2.10 San Pablo Ave at GJM Blvd
INT 2.11 Hilby Ave at GJM Blvd

BENEFIT-COST RATIO SUMMARY
As an initial screening, the existing intersection control types for each intersection were compared to a respective, preferred alternative. Below is a chart that depicts the Benefit-Cost (B/C) range for the preferred alternative (Improvements) as compared to the existing (No Improvements). B/C ranges in the blue section are less than 1.0, meaning the existing conditions provide a better return on investment (ROI) than the preferred improvements.

B/C ranges in the green section are greater than 1.0, meaning the preferred improvements would provide a better ROI than the existing conditions. Note that the chart is in logarithmic scale.

Benefit-Cost Ratio Summary Chart
B/C = 1.0: A B/C Ratio of 1.0 is a neutral rating. This indicates that the ROI for a proposed intersection control type is equal to the existing intersection control type.

B/C < 1.0: A B/C Ratio less than 1.0 indicates that the existing intersection control will provide a better ROI when compared to the proposed intersection improvement.

B/C > 1.0: A B/C Ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that the proposed intersection control alternative provides a better ROI when compared to the existing intersection control type. *NA-S: Existing Stop-Control/Existing Signal Preferred. When the absolute value of the total safety and delay costs for the existing control is less than that of a proposed alternative, the resulting B/C ratio is negative, and the existing conditions is preferred.

INT 2.8
INT 1.2
INT 1.1 Gate Closed
INT 1.1 Gate Open
INT 2.6
INT 1.6
INT 2.3
INT 2.7a
INT 2.11
INT 1.3
INT 2.9
INT 2.10
INT 2.2

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
NA-S* B/C=1
INT 1.4
INT 1.5
INT 2.1
INT 2.4
INT 2.5
INT 2.7b
No Improvements Improvements
Packet Page 161
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 5 of 103 ends

SECONDARY BENEFIT-COST RATIO SUMMARY
A secondary screening was completed for the intersections that had a B/C range greater than 1.0 and/or intersections where the city of Seaside are considering improvements. For example, the existing conditions at INT

2.5 (Broadway Avenue at Yosemite Street) are acceptable based on LOS (level of service), however a road diet is being considered along Broadway Avenue. In this case, a single-lane roundabout and a signal that will conform to the new cross section are compared in the secondary benefit-cost ratio summary. Similarly, the current conditions at INT 2.7b (on/off ramps at US 1/Lightfighter Avenue interchange) are acceptable, however the city of Seaside is considering adding a ramp terminal at the interchange. Because a ramp terminal is being considered, a roundabout and a signal are compared in the secondary benefit-cost ratio summary.

The bars in the graph below depict ranges of estimated B/C ratios of a proposed roundabout to a proposed traditional improvement (new traffic signal or signal improvements). Two intersections compared a proposed roundabout to the existing signalized conditions (1.6 and 2.3). INT 1.6 (Broadway Avenue at Fremont Boulevard) is currently signalized but does not meet LOS thresholds. To meet LOS thresholds, INT 1.6 would require additional lanes but there is not enough available space to add lanes. INT 2.3 (La Salle Avenue at Fremont Boulevard) is currently signalized and meets LOS thresholds; therefore, the existing configuration is adequate and will not require any improvements.

Benefit-Cost Ratio Summary Chart
B/C = 1.0: A B/C Ratio of 1.0 is a neutral rating. This indicates that the ROI for a proposed roundabout is equal to the ROI for the proposed traditional improvements.

B/C < 1.0: A B/C Ratio less than 1.0 indicates that the proposed traditional improvements will provide a better ROI when compared to the proposed roundabout.

B/C > 1.0: A B/C Ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that the proposed roundabout provides a greater ROI when compared to the proposed traditional improvements.
**NA-R: Roundabout Preferred. When the additional initial capital cost of a roundabout is less than the initial capital cost of the traditional improvements plus the added operations and Maintenance (O&M), and the roundabout provides greater benefits of the traditional improvements, a B/C ratio is negative, and the roundabout is preferred.

ROUNDABOUT BUDGET SUMMARY
The Intersection Improvement Budget is the budget to construct roundabout improvements while remaining cost effective compared to an alternative traditional intersection control. The Intersection Improvement Budget is determined by comparing the benefit and cost performance measures for an assumed B/C = 1.0.

Packet Page 162
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 6 of 103 ends

𝐑𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐁𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭
= ∑ 𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐑𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 − (𝐀𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐎&𝐌 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐑𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭) + (𝐈𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬)
Below is a summary of the Roundabout Budget for each intersection:

Multi-Lane Roundabouts
Mini Roundabouts
Legend
INT 2.8
INT 1.2
INT 1.6
INT 2.7b
INT 2.3
INT 1.3
INT 2.7a
INT 2.11
INT 2.10
-$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $5,000,000 $7,000,000 Packet Page 163
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 7 of 103 ends

Intersection 1.1 – Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Closed)

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The three intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing AWSC (All-Way Stop-Control)

2. Traffic Signal

3. Mini-Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Coe Ave at Paralta Ave is currently stop controlled. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Bus Stop

2. Proximity to GJM Blvd

3. Steep slope and grass-lined channel

4. Seaside Middle School

5. Single family residential

6. Intersection pinch point/Existing gate

7. Water utilities facility

8. Driveway

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus N/A N/A
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses N/A N/A Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs X
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
INT 1.1
Coe Ave at Paralta Ave (Gate Closed)
Qualitative Assessment
Packet Page 164
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 8 of 103 ends

Delay
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 11465 1293 698
Annual Cost $ 133,974 $ 17,085 $ 9,243
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 2,947,428 $ 375,864 $ 203,351

Initial Capital
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
High Approximation $0 $1,200,000 $700,000
Low Approximation $0 $800,000 $400,000

Life Cycle Benefit Cost Ratio
Total Benefits (B)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Safety $ - $ (1,540,344) $ (367,566)
Delay $ - $ 2,571,565 $ 2,744,077
Total Benefits $ - $ 1,031,220 $ 2,376,512

Total Costs (C)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
O&M $ - $ 124,386 $ 21,973
Budget $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 550,000
Total Costs $ - $ 1,124,386 $ 571,973

Packet Page 165
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 9 of 103 ends

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.

Packet Page 166
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 10 of 103 ends

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the signal ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the signal ICC and the high-end of the roundabout ICC.

PREFERRED INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative based on B/C ratio for this intersection is roundabout control.

Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
B/C Target
Traffic Signal
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total
Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ 1,200,000 $ 400,000 $ (800,000) $ (904,746) NA-R Low $ 800,000 $ 700,000 $ (100,000) $ (204,746) NA-R
Roundabout Budget 1,000,000 $ $ 2,450,037 $ 1,450,037 $ 1,345,291 1.00 Capital Cost Project Constraints
$ (104,746) $ 1,345,291
Packet Page 167
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Overall Intersection Summary

Page 11 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Traffic Signal
Mini-Roundabout
Packet Page 168
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.1 – Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Open)

Page 12 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION 1.1 – COE AVENUE AT PARALTA AVENUE (GATE OPEN)

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The three intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing AWSC (All-Way Stop-Control)

2. Traffic Signal

3. Mini-Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Coe Ave at Paralta Ave is currently stop controlled. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Bus Stop

2. Proximity to GJM Blvd

3. Steep slope and grass-lined channel

4. Seaside Middle School

5. Single family residential

6. Intersection pinch point/Existing gate

7. Water utilities facility

8. Driveway

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus N/A N/A
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses N/A N/A Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs X
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
INT 1.1
Coe Ave at Paralta Ave (Gate Open)
Qualitative Assessment
Packet Page 169
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.1 – Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Open)

Page 13 of 103 ends

Delay
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 12,166 2,136 768
Annual Cost $ 143,363 $ 28,243 $ 10,188
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 3,153,980 $ 621,343 $ 224,131

Initial Capital
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
High Approximation $ 0 $ 1,200,000 $ 700,000
Low Approximation $ 0 $ 800,000 $ 400,000

Life Cycle Benefit-Cost Ratio
Total Benefits (B)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Safety $ - $ (2,568,784) $ (771,309)
Delay $ - $ 2,532,637 $ 2,929,849
Total Benefits $ - $ (36,147) $ 2,158,540

Total Costs (C)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
O&M $ - $ 122,054 $ 17,308
Budget $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 550,000
Total Costs $ - $ 1,122,054 $ 567,308

Packet Page 170
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.1 – Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Open)

Page 14 of 103 ends

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.

Packet Page 171
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.1 – Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Open)

Page 15 of 103 ends

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the signal ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the signal ICC and the high-end of the roundabout ICC.

PREFERRED INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative based on B/C ratio for this intersection is roundabout control.

B/C Target
Traffic Signal
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ 1,200,000 $ 400,000 $ (800,000) $ (904,746) NA-R Low $ 800,000 $ 700,000 $ (100,000) $ (204,746) NA-R
Roundabout Budget 1,000,000 $ $ 3,299,433 $ 2,299,433 $ 2,194,687 1.00 Capital Cost Project Constraints
$ (104,746) $ 2,194,687
Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
Packet Page 172
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.1 – Coe Avenue at Paralta Avenue (Gate Open)

Page 16 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Traffic Signal
Mini-Roundabout
Packet Page 173
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.2 – Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 17 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION 1.2 – COE AVENUE AT GENERAL JIM MOORE BOULEVARD

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The two intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing AWSC (All-Way Stop-Control)

2. Traffic Signal

3. Multi-lane Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Coe Ave at General Jim Moore Blvd is currently controlled by signals. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Proximity to Paralta Ave

2. Steep grade

3. Water utilities facility

4. Seaside Middle School

5. Telephone pole

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus N/A N/A
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses N/A N/A Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs X
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
INT 1.2
Coe Ave at GJM Blvd
Qualitative Assessment
Packet Page 174
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.2 – Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 18 of 103 ends

Delay
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 52564 10400 4843
Annual Cost $ 609,740 $ 129,777 $ 58,768
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 13,414,274 $ 2,855,089 $ 1,292,895

Initial Capital
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
High Approximation $ 0 $ 1,200,000 $ 3,500,000
Low Approximation $ 0 $ 800,000 $ 2,000,000

Life Cycle Benefit-Cost Ratio
Total Benefits (B)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Safety $ - $ (3,463,704) $ 226,068
Delay $ - $ 10,559,185 $ 12,121,379
Total Benefits $ - $ 7,095,481 $ 12,347,447

Total Costs (C)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
O&M $ - $ 122,054 $ 11,527
Budget $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 2,750,000
Total Costs $ - $ 1,122,054 $ 2,761,527

Packet Page 175
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.2 – Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 19 of 103 ends

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.

Packet Page 176
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.2 – Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 20 of 103 ends

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the signal ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the signal ICC and the high-end of the roundabout ICC.

B/C Target
Traffic Signal
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ 1,200,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 800,000 $ 689,879 7.61
Low $ 800,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 2,700,000 $ 2,589,879 2.03
Roundabout Budget 1,000,000 $ $ 6,362,086 $ 5,362,086 $ 5,251,965 1.00 Capital Cost Project Constraints
$ (110,121) $ 5,251,965
Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
Packet Page 177
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.2 – Coe Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 21 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Traffic Signal
Multi-Lane Roundabout
Packet Page 178
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.3 – Broadway Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 22 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION 1.3 – BROADWAY AVENUE AT GENERAL JIM MOORE BOULEVARD

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The three intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing Signal

2. Signal with additional EBR lane

3. Multi-lane Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Broadway Ave at General Jim Moore Blvd is currently controlled by signals. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Steep uphill grade

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses N/A N/A Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
Qualitative Assessment
INT 1.3
Broadway Ave at GJM Blvd
Packet Page 179
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.3 – Broadway Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 23 of 103 ends

Performance Measure Life Cycle Cost (Net Present Value) Safety
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $ 170,534 $ 166,408 $ 55,099
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $ 2,392,446 $ 2,334,570 $ 772,989

Delay
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 5,682 5,819 5,319
Annual Cost $ 70,036 $ 71,254 $ 64,308
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 1,540,790 $ 1,567,599 $ 1,414,770

O&M
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs 9,220 9,220 1,920
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $ 129,349 $ 129,349 $ 26,936 Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $ 80,628 $ 80,628 $ 72,515 Total O&M Costs $ 209,977 $ 209,977 $ 99,451

Initial Capital
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
High Approximation $ 0 $ 200,000 $ 3,500,000
Low Approximation $ 0 $ 100,000 $ 2,000,000

Life Cycle Benefit-Cost Ratio
Total Benefits (B)
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Safety $ - $ 57,876 $ 1,619,457
Delay $ - $ (26,809) $ 126,020
Total Benefits $ - $ 31,067 $ 1,745,477

Total Costs (C)
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
O&M $ - $ - $ (110,526)
Budget $ - $ 150,000 $ 2,750,000
Total Costs $ - $ 150,000 $ 2,639,474

B/C Ratio Compared to Existing NA* 0.21 0.66*
*Neither the proposed roundabout nor signal have a B/C ratio greater than 1.0 which means the existing signal is the preferred control. Operations for the existing control are acceptable in the future. The rest of this section will compare the existing signal and the proposed roundabout.

Packet Page 180
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.3 – Broadway Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 24 of 103 ends

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.

Packet Page 181
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.3 – Broadway Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 25 of 103 ends

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the existing traffic signal ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the traffic existing signal initial capital costs and the highend of the roundabout initial capital costs.

Roundabout ICC Range
Roundabout Budget
B/C = 1
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for Broadway Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard. The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout are represented by the vertical solid lines. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. The roundabout budget is depicted with the green dotted line. If the roundabout cost is less than the budget, the B/C is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater ROI. If the roundabout cost is greater than the budget, the B/C is less than 1.0 and the existing signal has the greater ROI.

PREFERRED INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative based on B/C ratio is the existing traffic signal. A road diet along Broadway Avenue consisting of roundabouts at several intersections is being proposed. If roundabouts are constructed along Broadway Avenue a roundabout should also be considered at this intersection to maintain continuity.

B/C Target
Traffic Signal
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ 2,000,000 - $ $ 2,000,000 $ 2,110,526 0.83
Low $ 3,500,000 - $ $ 3,500,000 $ 3,610,526 0.48
Roundabout Budget -$ 1,634,951 $ $ 1,634,951 $ 1,745,477 1.00 $ 110,526 $ 1,745,477
Capital Cost Project Constraints
Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
Packet Page 182
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.3 – Broadway Avenue at General Jim Moore Boulevard

Page 26 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Proposed - Traffic Signal
Multi-Lane Roundabout
Packet Page 183
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.4 – La Salle Avenue at Yosemite Street

Page 27 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION 1.4 – LA SALLE AVENUE AT YOSEMITE STREET

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The two intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing AWSC (All-Way Stop-Control)

2. Mini Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
La Salle Ave at Yosemite St is currently controlled by signals. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Offset intersection

2. Single family residential

3. Ord Terrace Elementary School

4. Driveway

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus X X
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses X
Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs X X
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
Qualitative Assessment
INT 1.4
La Salle Ave at Yosemite St
Packet Page 184
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.4 – La Salle Avenue at Yosemite Street

Page 28 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION LIFE CYCLE COST CALCULATIONS
Operations under the existing control meet the LOS threshold and signal warrants are not met at La Salle Avenue at Yosemite Street. The rest of this section will compare the existing AWSC and the proposed roundabout.

Performance Measure Life Cycle Cost (Net Present Value) Safety
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $ 42,440 $ 73,835
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $ 595,392 $ 1,035,847

Delay
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 1,267 548
Annual Cost $ 16,993 $ 7,335
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 373,852 $ 161,364

O&M
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs 520 1,920
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $ 7,295 $ 26,936
Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $ 10,750 $ 8,418
Total O&M Costs $ 18,046 $ 35,354

Initial Capital
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
High Approximation $ 0 $ 800,000
Low Approximation $ 0 $ 500,000

Packet Page 185
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.4 – La Salle Avenue at Yosemite Street

Page 29 of 103 ends

PERFORMANCE MEASURE SUMMARY
Four performance measures were evaluated at each intersection for stop control and roundabout control. The table below summarizes the performance measures considered in this study.

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.

Packet Page 186
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.4 – La Salle Avenue at Yosemite Street

Page 30 of 103 ends

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the existing AWSC ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the existing AWSC ICC and the high-end of the roundabout ICC.

Note that NA-S means the absolute value of the total safety and delay costs for the existing AWSC is less than that of a roundabout, the resulting B/C ratio is negative, and the existing conditions control is preferred.

Roundabout ICC Range
Roundabout Budget
B/C = 1
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for La Salle Avenue at Yosemite Street. The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout are represented by the vertical solid lines. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. The roundabout budget is depicted with the green dotted line. If the roundabout cost is less than the budget, the B/C is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater ROI. If the roundabout cost is greater than the budget, the B/C is less than 1.0 and the existing AWSC has the greater ROI.

PREFERRED INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative based on B/C ratio for this intersection is all-way stop control.

B/C Target
AWSC
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 510,615 NA-S
Low $ - $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ 810,615 NA-S
Roundabout Budget -$ (238,581) $ $ (238,581) $ (227,966) 1.00 Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
Capital Cost Project Constraints
$ 10,615 $ (227,966)
Packet Page 187
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.4 – La Salle Avenue at Yosemite Street

Page 31 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Existing – AWSC
Mini Roundabout
Packet Page 188
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.5 – Sonoma Avenue at Yosemite Street

Page 32 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION 1.5 – SONOMA AVENUE AT YOSEMITE STREET

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The two intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing AWSC (All-Way Stop-Control)

2. Mini-Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Sonoma Ave at Yosemite St is currently controlled by signals. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Highland Elementary School

2. Single family residential

3. Bus Stop

4. Multi-family residence

5. Driveway

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus X X
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses X
Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs X X
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
Qualitative Assessment
INT 1.5
Sonoma Ave at Yosemite St
Packet Page 189
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.5 – Sonoma Avenue at Yosemite Street

Page 33 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION LIFE CYCLE COST CALCULATIONS
Operations under the existing control meet the LOS threshold and signal warrants are not met at Sonoma Avenue at Yosemite Street. The rest of this section will compare the existing AWSC and the proposed roundabout.

Performance Measure Life Cycle Cost (Net Present Value) Safety
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $ 30,850 $ 48,615
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $ 432,805 $ 682,033

Delay
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 636 299
Annual Cost $ 8,456 $ 3,973
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 186,038 $ 87,400

O&M
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs 520 1,920
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $ 7,295 $ 26,936
Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $ 10,750 $ 8,418
Total O&M Costs $ 18,046 $ 35,354

Initial Capital
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
High Approximation $ 0 $ 700,000
Low Approximation $ 0 $ 400,000

Packet Page 190
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.5 – Sonoma Avenue at Yosemite Street

Page 34 of 103 ends

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.

Packet Page 191
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.5 – Sonoma Avenue at Yosemite Street

Page 35 of 103 ends

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the existing AWSC ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the existing AWSC ICC and the high-end of the roundabout ICC.

Roundabout ICC Range
Roundabout Budget
B/C = 1
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for Sonoma Avenue at Yosemite Street. The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout are represented by the vertical solid lines. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. The roundabout budget is depicted with the green dotted line. If the roundabout cost is less than the budget, the B/C is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater ROI. If the roundabout cost is greater than the budget, the B/C is less than 1.0 and the existing AWSC has the greater ROI.

PREFERRED INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative based on B/C ratio for this intersection is the existing all-way stop control.

B/C Target
AWSC
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ - $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 417,308 NA-S
Low $ - $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 717,308 NA-S
Roundabout Budget -$ (167,898) $ $ (167,898) $ (150,590) 1.00 Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
Capital Cost Project Constraints
$ 17,308 $ (150,590)
Packet Page 192
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 1.5 – Sonoma Avenue at Yosemite Street

Page 36 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Existing - AWSC
Mini-Roundabout
Packet Page 193
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
INT 1.6 – Broadway Ave at Fremont Blvd

Page 37 of 103 ends

INT 1.6 – BROADWAY AVE AT FREMONT BLVD

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The two intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing Signal

2. Multi-lane Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Broadway Ave at Fremont Blvd is currently controlled by signals. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Gas Station

2. Bus Stop

3. Grocery Sore

4. Restaurant

5. Retail Store

6. Proximity to Santa Barbara St

7. Skewed Intersection Geometry

8. Driveways

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus X X
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses X
Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
Qualitative Assessment
INT 1.6
Broadway Ave at Fremont Blvd
Packet Page 194
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
INT 1.6 – Broadway Ave at Fremont Blvd

Page 38 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION LIFE CYCLE COST CALCULATIONS
The current configuration does not provide enough capacity to meet the LOS threshold. To meet the LOS threshold an additional NB thru lane and WB left lane would need to be installed. Large amount of right-of-way would need to be acquired to construct the proposed signal. Due to no available room to add additional lanes and unforeseeable right-of-way acquisition costs the rest of this section will compare the existing signal and the proposed roundabout.

Performance Measure Life Cycle Cost (Net Present Value) Safety
Existing (Signal) Signal (Add. Lanes) Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $ 424,613 $ 465,433 $ 145,601 Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $ 5,956,959 $ 6,529,639 $ 2,042,657

Delay
Existing (Signal) Signal (Add. Lanes) Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 14,472 11,478 6,274
Annual Cost $ 185,245 $ 150,068 $ 80,576
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 4,075,388 $ 3,301,500 $ 1,772,676

O&M
Existing (Signal) Signal (Add. Lanes) Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs 9,220 9,220 1,920
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $ 129,349 $ 129,349 $ 26,936 Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $ 65,923 $ 638,942 $ 56,034 Total O&M Costs $ 195,271 $ 768,291 $ 82,970

Initial Capital
Existing (Signal) Signal (Add. Lanes) Roundabout
High Approximation $ - $ - $ 4,000,000
Low Approximation $ - $ - $ 2,500,000
Packet Page 195
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
INT 1.6 – Broadway Ave at Fremont Blvd

Page 39 of 103 ends

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.

Packet Page 196
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
INT 1.6 – Broadway Ave at Fremont Blvd

Page 40 of 103 ends

*The proposed roundabout will require right-of-way acquisition to be constructed.

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the existing traffic signal ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the existing traffic signal ICC and the high-end of the roundabout ICC.

Roundabout ICC Range
Roundabout Budget
B/C = 1
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for Broadway Avenue at Fremont Boulevard. The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout are represented by the vertical solid lines. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. The roundabout budget is depicted with the green dotted line. If the roundabout cost is less than the budget, the B/C is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater ROI. If the roundabout cost is greater than the budget, the B/C is less than 1.0 and the existing signal has the greater ROI.

PREFERRED INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative based on B/C ratio for this intersection is roundabout control, however due to the necessity of right-of-way acquisition, the existing signal may provide a greater return on investment. While additional costs for right-of-way was included in the ICC based on current parcel values, right-of-way costs are uncertain and can significantly drive up the cost of construction. There is also a grocery store in the south-east corner of this intersection that will potentially lose several parking spaces. Further refinement of the roundabout concept could reduce right-of-way impacts but will not eliminate them.

B/C Target
Traffic Signal
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ 3,000,000 - $ $ 3,000,000 $ 2,887,699 2.15*
Low $ 4,500,000 - $ $ 4,500,000 $ 4,387,699 1.42*
Roundabout Budget -$ 6,329,315 $ $ 6,329,315 $ 6,217,014 1.00 Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
Capital Cost Project Constraints
$ (112,301) $ 6,217,014
Packet Page 197
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
INT 1.6 – Broadway Ave at Fremont Blvd

Page 41 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Existing - Traffic Signal
Multi-Lane Roundabout
Packet Page 198
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.1 – Ord Grove Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 42 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION 2.1 – ORD GROVE AVENUE AT NOCHE BUENA STREET

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The two intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing AWSC (All-Way Stop-Control)

2. Mini-Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Ord Grove Ave at Noche Buena St is currently controlled by signals. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Single family residential

2. Bus stop

3. Driveway

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus X X
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses X
Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs X X
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
Qualitative Assessment
INT 2.1
Ord Grove at Noche Buena St
Packet Page 199
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.1 – Ord Grove Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 43 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION LIFE CYCLE COST CALCULATIONS
Operations under the existing control meet the LOS threshold and signal warrants are not met at Ord Grove Avenue at Noche Buena Street. The rest of this section will compare the existing AWSC and the proposed roundabout.

Performance Measure Life Cycle Cost (Net Present Value) Safety
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $ 73,037 $ 122,375
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $ 1,024,647 $ 1,716,822

Delay
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 2,335 1,059
Annual Cost $ 31,142 $ 14,077
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 685,116 $ 309,693

O&M
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs 520 1,920
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $ 7,295 $ 26,936
Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $ 10,750 $ 8,418
Total O&M Costs $ 18,046 $ 35,354

Initial Capital
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
High Approximation $ 0 $ 800,000
Low Approximation $ 0 $ 500,000

Packet Page 200
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.1 – Ord Grove Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 44 of 103 ends

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
Cost ($)
Life-Cycle
Discounted
Cost
Packet Page 201
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.1 – Ord Grove Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 45 of 103 ends

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the existing AWSC ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the existing AWSC ICC and the high-end of the roundabout ICC.

Roundabout ICC Range
Roundabout Budget
B/C = 1
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for Ord Grove Avenue at Noche Buena Street. The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout are represented by the vertical solid lines. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. The roundabout budget is depicted with the green dotted line. If the roundabout cost is less than the budget, the B/C is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater ROI. If the roundabout cost is greater than the budget, the B/C is less than 1.0 and the existing AWSC has the greater ROI.

PREFERRED INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative based on B/C ratio for this intersection is all-way stop control.

B/C Target
AWSC
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 502,501 NA-S
Low $ - $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ 802,501 NA-S
Roundabout Budget -$ (319,252) $ $ (319,252) $ (316,751) 1.00 Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
Capital Cost Project Constraints
$ 2,501 $ (316,751)
Packet Page 202
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.1 – Ord Grove Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 46 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Existing - AWSC
Mini-Roundabout
Packet Page 203
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.2 – La Salle Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 47 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION 2.2 – LA SALLE AVENUE AT NOCHE BUENA STREET

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The two intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing AWSC (All-Way Stop-Control)

2. Mini-Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
La Salle Ave at Noche Buena St is currently controlled by signals. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Single family residential

2. Driveway

3. Bus stop

4. Boys and Girls Club of Monterey

5. Preschool

6. Adult school

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus X X
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses X
Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs X X
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
Qualitative Assessment
INT 2.2
La Salle Ave at Noche Buena St
Packet Page 204
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.2 – La Salle Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 48 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION LIFE CYCLE COST CALCULATIONS
Operations under the existing control meet the LOS threshold and signal warrants are not met at La Salle Avenue at Noche Buena Street. The rest of this section will compare the existing AWSC and the proposed roundabout.

Performance Measure Life Cycle Cost (Net Present Value) Safety
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $ 64,191 $ 101,343
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $ 900,539 $ 1,421,760

Delay
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 3,796 1,319
Annual Cost $ 50,286 $ 17,515
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 1,106,290 $ 385,326

O&M
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs 520 1,920
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $ 7,295 $ 26,936
Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $ 10,750 $ 8,418
Total O&M Costs $ 18,046 $ 35,354

Initial Capital
Existing (AWSC) Roundabout
High Approximation $ 0 $ 700,000
Low Approximation $ 0 $ 400,000

Packet Page 205
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.2 – La Salle Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 49 of 103 ends

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
Cost ($)
Life-Cycle
Discounted
Cost
Packet Page 206
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.2 – La Salle Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 50 of 103 ends

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the existing AWSC ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the existing AWSC ICC and the high-end of the roundabout ICC.

Roundabout ICC Range
Roundabout Budget
B/C = 1
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for La Salle Avenue at Noche Buena Street. The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout are represented by the vertical solid lines. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. The roundabout budget is depicted with the green dotted line. If the roundabout cost is less than the budget, the B/C is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater ROI. If the roundabout cost is greater than the budget, the B/C is less than 1.0 and the existing AWSC has the greater ROI.

PREFERRED INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative based on B/C ratio for this intersection is all-way stop control.

B/C Target
AWSC
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ - $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 417,308 0.48
Low $ - $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 717,308 0.28
Roundabout Budget -$ 182,435 $ $ 182,435 $ 199,743 1.00 Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
Capital Cost Project Constraints
$ 17,308 $ 199,743
$-
$100,000.00
$200,000.00
$300,000.00
$400,000.00
$500,000.00
$600,000.00
$- $1,000,000.00 AWSC Cost
Roundabout Cost
Packet Page 207
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.2 – La Salle Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 51 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Existing - AWSC
Mini-Roundabout
Packet Page 208
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.3 – La Salle Avenue at Fremont Boulevard

Page 52 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION 2.3 – LA SALLE AVENUE AT FREMONT BOULEVARD

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The two intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing Signal

2. Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
La Salle Ave at Fremont Blvd is currently controlled by signals. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Skewed intersection geometry

2. Driveway

3. Gas station

4. Shopping center

5. Restaurant

6. Hotel

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus X X
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses X
Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs X
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
Qualitative Assessment
INT 2.3
La Salle Ave at Fremont Blvd
Packet Page 209
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.3 – La Salle Avenue at Fremont Boulevard

Page 53 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION LIFE CYCLE COST CALCULATIONS
Operations under the existing signal meet the LOS threshold. The rest of this section will compare the existing signal and the proposed roundabout.

Performance Measure Life Cycle Cost (Net Present Value) Safety
Existing (Signal) Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $ 479,188 $ 149,641
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $ 6,722,607 $ 2,099,340

Delay
Existing (Signal) Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 3,727 4,409
Annual Cost $ 49,699 $ 58,537
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 1,093,370 $ 1,287,811

O&M
Existing (Signal) Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs 9,220 1,920
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $ 129,349 $ 26,936
Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $ 50,710 $ 43,103
Total O&M Costs $ 180,059 $ 70,039

Initial Capital
Existing (Signal) Roundabout
High Approximation $ 0 $ 4,500,000
Low Approximation $ 0 $ 3,000,000

Packet Page 210
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.3 – La Salle Avenue at Fremont Boulevard

Page 54 of 103 ends

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.

Packet Page 211
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.3 – La Salle Avenue at Fremont Boulevard

Page 55 of 103 ends

*The proposed roundabout will require right-of-way acquisition to be constructed.

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the existing traffic signal ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the existing traffic signal ICC and the high-end of the roundabout ICC.

Roundabout ICC Range
Roundabout Budget
B/C = 1
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for La Salle Avenue at Fremont Boulevard. The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout are represented by the vertical solid lines. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. The roundabout budget is depicted with the green dotted line. If the roundabout cost is less than the budget, the B/C is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater ROI. If the roundabout cost is greater than the budget, the B/C is less than 1.0 and the existing signal has the greater ROI.

PREFERRED INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative based on B/C ratio for this intersection is roundabout control, however, due to the necessity of right-of-way acquisition, the existing signal may provide a greater return on investment. While additional costs for right-of-way acquisition were included in the ICC, right-of-way costs are uncertain and can significantly drive up the cost of the construction. There is also a restaurant in the north-west corner of the intersection that is a significant constraint for the roundabout and would be impacted by the design. Further refinement of the roundabout concept could reduce right-of-way impacts but will not eliminate them. Because of the relatively low B/C ratio and the uncertainty of ROW acquisition costs both alternative are viable.

B/C Target
Traffic Signal
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ 3,000,000 - $ $ 3,000,000 $ 2,889,879 1.53*
Low $ 4,500,000 - $ $ 4,500,000 $ 4,389,879 1.01*
Roundabout Budget -$ 4,538,946 $ $ 4,538,946 $ 4,428,826 1.00 Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
Capital Cost Project Constraints
$ (110,121) $ 4,428,826
Packet Page 212
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.3 – La Salle Avenue at Fremont Boulevard

Page 56 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Existing - Traffic Signal
Roundabout
Packet Page 213
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.4 – Broadway Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 57 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION 2.4 – BROADWAY AVENUE AT NOCHE BUENA STREET

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The two intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing Signal

2. Proposed Traffic Signal

3. Mini-Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Broadway Ave at Noche Buena St is currently controlled by signals. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Place of Worship

2. Monterey County Social Services

3. Driveway

4. Proximity to Kenneth St

5. Liquor Store

6. Preschool

7. Bus stop

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Packet Page 214
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.4 – Broadway Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 58 of 103 ends

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus X X
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses X
Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs X X
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
Qualitative Assessment
INT 2.4
Broadway Ave at Noche Buena St
Packet Page 215
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.4 – Broadway Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 59 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION LIFE CYCLE COST CALCULATIONS
The first-stage B/C analysis compares proposed improvements to the existing conditions. If the B/C ratio is greater than 1.0, the proposed improvements have a greater return on investment than the existing control.

Performance Measure Life Cycle Cost (Net Present Value) Safety
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $ 191,705 $ 176,933 $ 89,964
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $ 2,689,457 $ 2,482,224 $ 1,262,124

Delay
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 3,991 6,851 4131.10023
Annual Cost $ 52,956 $ 89,197 $ 54,775
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 1,165,028 $ 1,962,332 $ 1,205,050

O&M
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs 9,220 9,220 1,920
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $ 129,349 $ 129,349 $ 26,936 Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $ 25,862 $ 25,862 $ 21,983 Total O&M Costs $ 155,211 $ 155,211 $ 48,919

Initial Capital
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
High Approximation $ - $ 200,000 $ 800,000
Low Approximation $ - $ 100,000 $ 500,000

Life Cycle Benefit-Cost Ratio
Total Benefits (B)
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Safety $ - $ 207,233 $ 1,427,332
Delay $ - $ (797,303) $ (40,022)
Total Benefits $ - $ (590,070) $ 1,387,311

Total Costs (C)
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
O&M $ - $ - $ (106,292)
Budget $ - $ 200,000 $ 800,000
Total Costs $ - $ 200,000 $ 693,708

B/C Ratio Compared to Existing NA* NA-S* 2.00
The proposed signal provides less benefits than the existing AWSC, which makes it NA-S (existing signal is preferred). The proposed roundabout is preferred over the existing signal. A road diet is being considered along Broadway Avenue and the existing configuration will not conform. Both the proposed signal and roundabout will conform to the road diet. The rest of this section will compare the proposed roundabout and traffic signal.

Packet Page 216
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.4 – Broadway Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 60 of 103 ends

Injury and Fatality crashes are on
average 700-1,000 times more expense
than Property Damage Only accidents.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost
associated with the number of personhours delayed in traffic. Overall societal costs are based on Caltrans Vehicle
Operation Cost Parameters.

Costs
Operations and Maintenance
O&M measures the common annualized
costs associated with operating and
maintaining the intersection.

Initial Capital Cost
Measures the Initial Capital Costs (ICC)
needed to plan, design, obtain project
approvals, acquire right-of-way, and
construct the intersection control.

Packet Page 217
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.4 – Broadway Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 61 of 103 ends

The high B/C target is calculated assuming the high-end of the traffic signal ICC and the low-end of the roundabout ICC.

The low B/C target is calculated assuming the low-end of the traffic signal ICC and the high-end of the roundabout ICC.

Signal ICC Range
Roundabout ICC Range
Roundabout Budget
B/C = 1
Estimated ICC Range
The table above summarizes the B/C analysis for Broadway Avenue at Noche Buena Street. The initial capital cost (ICC) ranges for the roundabout and proposed signal options are represented by the vertical and horizontal solid lines, respectively. The black diagonal line represents a neutral B/C ratio of 1.0. If a pair of roundabout and proposed signal ICC costs (x and y values) are above the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is greater than 1.0 and the roundabout option has the greater ROI. If a pair of roundabout and signal ICC costs is below the black diagonal line, then the B/C ratio is less than 1.0 and the proposed signal has the greater ROI. The roundabout budget is the is depicted with the green dotted line and represents how much can be spent on the roundabout ICC to achieve a neutral B/C equal to 1.0.

PREFERRED INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative based on B/C ratio for this intersection is roundabout control.

B/C Target
Traffic Signal
( a )
Roundabout
( b )
Added Cost for
Roundabout
( c ) = ( b - a )
Added O&M Cost
for Roundabout
( d )
Total Benefits
( e )
Total Costs
( f ) = ( c + d )
B/C
( g ) = ( e / f )
High $ 200,000 $ 500,000 $ 300,000 $ 193,708 10.21
Low $ 100,000 $ 800,000 $ 700,000 $ 593,708 3.33
Roundabout Budget 150,000 $ $ 2,233,673 $ 2,083,673 $ 1,977,381 1.00 Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations
Capital Cost Project Constraints
$ (106,292) $ 1,977,381
Packet Page 218
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.4 – Broadway Avenue at Noche Buena Street

Page 62 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION CONTROL CONCEPT LAYOUTS
Proposed - Traffic Signal
Mini-Roundabout
Packet Page 219
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.5 – Broadway Avenue at Yosemite Street

Page 63 of 103 ends

INTERSECTION 2.5 – BROADWAY AVENUE AT YOSEMITE STREET

INTERSECTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The three intersection control types analyzed include:

1. Existing AWSC (All-Way Stop-Control)

2. Traffic Signal

3. Mini Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Broadway Ave at Yosemite St is currently controlled by signals. Design constraints at the intersection include:

1. Skewed intersection geometry

2. Fire Department

3. King Middle School

4. Place of Worship

5. Proximity to Highland St

6. Bus stop

7. Driveway

8. Single family residence

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
The following table summarizes qualitative factors that were considered in the design of each alternative.

Existing Control Roundabout Control
Feasibility Feasibility
Urban Environment Focus X X
Design for Pedestrians X X
Design for Bicyclists X X
Slow Traffic Speeds to Benefit Local Businesses N/A N/A Minimize ROW Acquisition to Limit Initial Costs X X
Minimize Left-Turn Movements to Improve Safety X
Qualitative Assessment
INT 2.5
Broadway Ave at Yosemite St
Packet Page 220
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.5 – Broadway Avenue at Yosemite Street

Page 64 of 103 ends

Performance Measure Life Cycle Cost (Net Present Value) Safety
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions $ 86,891 $ 314,811 $ 144,820
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions $ 1,219,005 $ 4,416,533 $ 2,031,697

Delay
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 4,393 1,913 2,047
Annual Cost $ 57,987 $ 25,321 $ 27,058
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost $ 1,275,718 $ 557,062 $ 595,280

O&M
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs $ 1000 $ 9,220 $ 1,920
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs $ 14,029 $ 129,349 $ 26,936 Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs $ 230,019 $ 230,019 $ 150,608 Total O&M Costs $ 244,048 $ 359,368 $ 177,544

Initial Capital
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
High Approximation $ 0 $ 1,200,000 $ 800,000
Low Approximation $ 0 $ 800,000 $ 500,000

Life Cycle Benefit-Cost Ratio
Total Benefits (B)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
Safety $ - $ (3,197,529) $ (812,693)
Delay $ - $ 718,657 $ 680,438
Total Benefits $ - $ (2,478,872) $ (132,254)

Total Costs (C)
Existing (AWSC) Signal Roundabout
O&M $ - $ 115,320 $ (66,504)
Budget $ - $ 1,200,000 $ 800,000
Total Costs $ - $ 1,315,320 $ 733,496

B/C Ratio Compared to Existing NA NA-S* NA-S*
*Both the proposed roundabout and signal provide less benefits than the existing AWSC, which makes them NA-S (existing is preferred); however, a road diet is being considered along Broadway Avenue and the existing configuration will not conform. Both the proposed signal and roundabout have a singular entry lane on all legs to conform to the road diet. The rest of this section will compare the proposed roundabout and traffic signal.

Packet Page 221
City of Seaside Intersection Control Evaluation Study
Intersection 2.5 – Broadway Avenue at Yosemite Street

Page 65 of 103 ends

Seaside City CouncilJuly 20, 2023

Seaside City Council
July 20, 2023