Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Honorable Council Members:
At the Planning and Transportation Commission’s request, we write to make you aware that the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project suffered from miscommunications that affected City Council, PTC, City Staff, and residents (especially Mr. Girand, the resident nearest the East Crescent bulb-out).
As we see it:
1. PTC intent was miscommunicated to Council, which then approved the item prematurely as part of the consent calendar.
In June 2023, PTC reviewed the results of pilot installations for the Project. As stated in the PTC Summary Minutes for June 14, 2023, PTC made the following recommendation to Council regarding the three components of the project, and notably did not recommend the East Cres- cent bulb-out for permanent installation without change:
“To make permanent number one [bollards for University Ave bike lane] and number three [traffic circle at Center]... Also, PTC recommended that number two [bulb-out at East Crescent] needed more work and that the bulb out be made more suitable with di- rect input from adjacent property owners.
“Commissioner Lu understood that location two would remain in place during the re- design and that Council would evaluate the proposal”
…
“Vice-Chair Chang noted part of the motion was that location two would return to PTC for review if approved by Council to pursue permanent installation. “[Office of Transportation Senior Engineer] Mr. Bhatia announced all three locations would come back to PTC for review.”
In November 2023 when the item was brought to Council, it was placed on the consent calendar as “Approval to Proceed with Design of Improvements for Permanent Installation of the Traffic Calming Pilot Project in the Crescent Park Neighborhood” and Council approved the item.
The Staff Report on the consent calendar item did not accurately represent PTC’s motion, and instead stated:
“The PTC members unanimously endorsed the project and recommended to the City Council that the staff be authorized to proceed with the design of permanent improve- ments. However, in response to concerns raised by the fronting property owners, the PTC further recommended that the staff work with the adjacent property owners to gather their input for the concerns of those directly affected in designing the permanent improvements.”
2. There was not a shared understanding of the project review and approval process.
After the pilot installations were analyzed to create final designs, a review was placed on the PTC agenda as an Action Item. PTC recommended approval of the traffic circle at Hamilton and Center, but did not recommend approval of the bulb-out at East Crescent. PTC requested that Transportation Staff interview Mr. Girand and refine or redesign the treatment on East Crescent before PTC could recommend approval, then continued the item.
When the item returned to PTC on September 24th it had been reclassified as a Study Session, implying PTC approval was no longer needed. From Transportation Staff’s point of view, the design had been approved by Council on the consent calendar and no additional PTC recommendation was expected or required. Therefore from Planning Staff’s point of view, the original classification as an Action Item had been in error.
As a consequence, though, both PTC and Mr. Girand felt that a design known to be unacceptable had been forced through.
3. There was not a shared understanding of the implications of a pilot project.
The informal concept of a pilot project is that it can be undone if determined to be unacceptable. PTC suggested on September 24th that a straightforward resolution for Mr.
Girand’s concerns would be to undo the pilot bulb-out at East Crescent.
However, simply implementing the pilot project triggered a permanent consequence: All modified intersections must be brought into compliance with the ADA, and the pilot itself is considered a modification.
As a result, the non-ADA-compliant access ramp that Mr. Girand has depended upon must be removed and replaced with a curb-height concrete pad, even if the piloted modifications were not approved and the temporary bulb-out and stop signs were uninstalled.
4. Two separate pieces of the traffic calming project, the traffic circle at Hamilton and Center and the bulb-out at East Crescent, were linked in a way they should not have been.
The traffic circle has enthusiastic community support and the PTC also gave its endorsement of the circle in June 2023. However, installation of the traffic circle cannot proceed until the controversy over the bulb-out is resolved because both parts of the project were quoted in a single engineering consultant contract. According to Transportation Staff, obtaining new, separate contracts for each piece of the project would result in substantial cost increases because so much time has elapsed and construction has become more expensive.
We are considering process improvements to prevent similar situations in the future:
1. PTC believes that projects of this type are in its purview, and final designs should be subject to review and recommendation.
2. Council Staff Reports should be reviewed early by the PTC liaison so that miscommunications can be resolved, ideally before the Reports are distributed to Council.
3. During hearings PTC should produce more formal summaries of conclusions that Staff can convey to Council.
4. PTC Liaisons should speak to Council more frequently.
We hope this summary has clarified matters. As always, we are available to answer your questions and we are grateful for your advice.
Allen Akin
Chair
Bryna Chang
Vice-Chair