Salinas staff propose changes to speed up neighborhood traffic-calming process; commissioners give feedback

Salinas city staff outlined a set of proposed changes to the Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and traffic-calming policy at a study session of the Traffic Transportation Commission on June 12. Staff described options to shorten the petition-to-construction timeline, reprioritize projects by safety risk, and reduce repeated community and commission approvals; commissioners provided feedback but took no formal action.

The study session focused on how the city receives petitions, scores and prioritizes requests, conducts community meetings and ballots, and moves approved plans into implementation. "We kind of consolidated all the comments that we've heard generally about the policy and the program and how it works. And what it all boiled down to ... it just takes too long," Adriana Robles, city engineer, told the commission.

Why it matters: commissioners and residents said long wait times and a growing backlog have left neighborhoods uncertain about when improvements might occur. Staff said the backlog, limited staff capacity and difficulty finding contractors for small projects have extended timelines. The changes staff proposed are intended to reduce delays, make the process more predictable, and accelerate implementation for high-safety concerns.

Staff presentation and proposals

Adriana Robles, city engineer, and Gerardo Rodriguez, assistant engineer in the traffic division, reviewed the program background and the four phases of the current process: plan initiation, plan development, plan support (balloting), and plan implementation. Rodriguez said the neighborhood traffic management program "was adopted in 02/2009," and that implementation of projects resumed in fiscal year 2016–17 after a gap.

Staff described the existing prioritization criteria — which include traffic volume, speed, collision history, roadway geometry and land use — and that council approved a resolution formalizing prioritization in late 2017. Rodriguez said the program has produced more than a dozen constructed projects but that requests have grown: staff reported a list of 43 petitions scheduled for reprioritization and said the city has received roughly seven new petitions so far in the calendar year presented.

Staff gave specific data about how the process currently works: plan initiation and analysis are often completed only in spring and fall to capture peak conditions; plan-support ballots are mailed with a 4–6 week return window (extended for holidays); the plan-support threshold requires 50% of ballots returned and, of those, 67% in favor (which staff noted equates to roughly 33–34% of the whole neighborhood in favor if only 50% return). Robles said implementation can take six months if staff does the work and as long as two years when contractor bids, contracts and scheduling are required. She added that the traffic division currently has four staff members and regularly uses interns for field data collection.

To reduce overall time from petition to construction, staff presented a menu of considerations for commission discussion: - Adjust the annual petition window timing (a rolling 12-month frame shifted to allow field data collection and prioritization before budget season). - Move from seasonal-only data collection to year-round analysis to allow faster handling of petitions, with the trade-off of potentially fewer petitions meeting peak-condition thresholds. - Introduce a safety-tier classification so petitions that meet specific safety criteria can "float to the top" and bypass some waiting steps. - Host community meetings at city-owned facilities rather than neighborhood schools to reduce scheduling delays caused by school calendars. - Set an expenditure limit for traffic-calming packages so staff can predict how many projects the city budget can support and limit plan options accordingly. - Reduce repeated approvals: if a neighborhood meeting approves a plan and petitioners already signed initial petitions, staff proposed moving to an "opt-out" notification (mail notice with a two-week period for objections) instead of an additional mailed ballot for every project. - Consolidate contractor work across multiple nearby projects to attract bids and reduce per-project contracting overhead.

Commission response and public comments

Commissioners asked for clarification on timelines, the distinction between traffic-calming measures and other traffic controls (for example, stop signs are analyzed outside the traffic-calming program), and how safety would be defined in any new criteria. Commissioner Hammer/Hamrick and Commissioner Peterson expressed support for speeding up the process for clearly identified safety issues; Peterson noted the program's limited output historically — staff said they have completed two to four projects per fiscal year under current staffing and budget levels.

During public comment, a resident identified as Yolanda described a sharp curve on Little River with parking on both sides near children playing and asked whether painting the curb red or a smaller intervention could be used as an urgent remedy rather than waiting for the full traffic-calming process. Robles and other staff clarified that visibility and safety concerns can be evaluated separately and that some intersection or parking restrictions ("daylighting") are handled outside traffic-calming, though enforcement and resources vary. A college student asked whether parking issues were part of traffic calming; staff said parking is not part of the traffic-calming ballot process but noted the department will evaluate parking or intersection concerns as separate requests.

Budget, backlog and implementation constraints

A commissioner asked about the annual traffic-calming budget; staff answered, "Our usual, budget for traffic calming is 200,000." Robles said the city manager had asked for an increase in the current year. Staff emphasized that small-project contracting is challenging: contractors frequently decline small jobs or submit large change-order prices, which can delay projects; consolidation is intended to make bids more attractive.

Next steps requested by the commission

Commissioners asked staff to return next month with a deeper proposal on safety-tier criteria and clarified timelines. Several commissioners supported shifting meetings to city facilities when appropriate, consolidating contractor work, and adopting clearer budget limits or standardized package options to set clearer expectations with neighborhoods. Staff said they will bring more detailed criteria and recommended procedural changes back to the commission for further direction.

Votes at a glance

The commission approved the consent agenda item to adopt the minutes from April 10 earlier in the meeting. The motion to approve the minutes passed by recorded voice votes: Commissioner Howell — Yes; Commissioner Hamrick — Yes; Commissioner Peterson — Yes; Commissioner Hernandez — Yes.

Ending

No formal policy change or council action was adopted at the June 12 study session. Staff will prepare revised criteria and a refined timeline for commission consideration at a follow-up meeting next month, per the commission's request. Residents with urgent safety concerns were advised to contact staff so those spots can be evaluated for interim measures outside the traffic-calming ballot process.