Salinas commission forwards most 2026 speed-limit changes but excludes Schonberg segment after safety concerns

The Salinas Traffic and Transportation Commission on May 14 reviewed staff—ngineering and traffic surveys that recommend altering posted speed limits for 12 roadway segments and voted to forward the package to city council with one modification: excluding a contested increase on the Schonberg/Skomberg corridor.

Jonathan Hernandez, traffic-division staff, told commissioners the surveys use the 85th-percentile method required by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and California guidance, and that AB 43 (effective July 2024) allows a local agency an additional 5 mph reduction on segments adjacent to schools, parks or other high pedestrian activity. "Surveys were conducted for 12 roadway segments set to expire in the second half of 2026," Hernandez said, summarizing staff recommendations to retain speeds on eight segments, reduce three, and increase one after rounding rules and allowable reductions were applied.

The staff report listed street-by-street findings: Chaparral Street retained at 25 mph; Tow Street measured at 32 mph and rounded and reduced to 25 mph under the methodology; Post Drive and Monterey Street retained at 30 and 25 mph respectively after rounding; Schonberg Parkway had an 85th-percentile measurement near 43 mph and staff recommended reducing it to 35 mph, then applying AB 43 to reach 35 mph (staff ccounting varied by segment depending on measured speeds and adjacent pedestrian generators). Hernandez emphasized that if an engineering and traffic survey is not performed within the required timeframe the posted speed would no longer be legally enforceable.

Public commenters and several commissioners challenged the sampling window used to collect the 85th-percentile speeds. Neighbors described heavy truck traffic and fast drivers on the Skomberg/Schonberg corridor and near Montebello schools and parks, and urged the commission to require additional signage or advisory speeds for curves. "You need to put a speed sign or a blinking light when you get closer to the curb," one resident said, citing near-miss incidents and student pickups.

Commissioners asked how "normal conditions" are defined for the surveys. Hernandez said surveys are taken during normal conditions (not limited to off-peak) and the staff follows MUTCD procedures; that guidance constrains when and how much speed limits can be reduced or raised under state and federal standards. Commissioners also raised concerns about public notification: staff confirmed there is typically no broad public-notification period after council adoption beyond published agendas and council packets.

Following discussion, Commissioner Orsonio moved to approve staff recommendations but exclude the Schonberg/Skomberg segment from the commission—ndorsement; Commissioner Guerra seconded. The amended motion passed by roll call (Metelli, O—Orsonio—/recorded as yes, Garrett, Peterson and Hernandez voting yes; Hammer voting no). With the commission ction, staff will include the commission's amended recommendations and any noted opposition in the packet forwarded to city council for a final decision.

The commission also flagged nonregulatory options to reduce speeds: targeted enforcement, roadway design treatments (rumble strips, guardrail, curb adjustments), and advisory or flashing caution signage at hazardous curves. Several commissioners urged the city to pursue additional enforcement resources and public outreach under Vision Zero principles.

Next steps: staff will prepare the commission ctions for the city council packet. City council retains the authority to accept, amend or reject the staff recommendations; if council adopts speed postings that are not supported by timely engineering surveys the city could face enforceability or legal challenges by defendants who contest a ticket. The commission indicated it will follow up on signage and potential traffic-calming measures for trouble corridors.