HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/2001, COMM - MAY 15TH COMMUNICATION ITEM: MARSH STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING communication
May 10, 2001 MEETING AGFA
TO: Council Colleagues
DATE ITEM#
FROM: John Ewan
SUBJECT: May 15`h Counication Item: Marsh Street Pedestrian Crossing
At the May 1, 2001 Council meeting, a request was made by Andrew Carter to improve the
safety of the Marsh Street pedestrian crossing. You may remember that during our discussions of
the new garage design, I asked City staff about the crossing and opportunities to address safety
concerns. Staff recalled at that time the EIR required a signal at the crossing. At last week's
meeting, however, the Public Works Director clarified that the EIR had only recommended, and
not required, the signal. Just to be sure, I asked Public Works to re-check the EIR which,
regarding the mid-block crossing, says: Mitigation Required. None, however the following
mitigation measure is recommended...". Nevertheless, the Council's action in certifying the EIR
was to adopt a signal installation as a traffic mitigation strategy.
Since that document was produced, however, the project has changed and the final project now
out to bid has reoriented pedestrian activity to Morro Street and Chorro Street and does not
include the bridge, the stairwell, or the elevator. However, the signal remains an approved part
of the project, and staff is working to bring it forward for authorization to bid.
You may recall that in January 2000, Council approved a crosswalk signing and safety policy. A
part of that policy dealt with "in-pavement" lighting systems at high pedestrian crossings. These
are "runway lights"with sensors that activate pavement lights when people are in the crosswalk.
The Council then approved money for this safety lighting system for the Marsh Street mid-block
crossing. It is my understanding that this system is 95% ready to bid, but work was stopped
when it appeared we were going"the signal route".
As an alternative mitigation strategy to the signal, I am interested in reconsidering the original in-
pavement street lighting system and am asking Council to direct staff to bring the two options
forward for Council reconsideration — the signal vs. the in-pavement lighting. My hope is that
Council will direct staff to move forward with the original in-ground street lighting system at
Marsh Street as soon as possible and that we monitor the results for about one year. Then, after a
full report at that time, we could give further formal direction to either proceed with the signal
installation project, drop it entirely, or test the in-pavement lights further(for some time after the
garage expansion has been completed).
JE:ss 0-005-LINCIL ❑ CDD DIR
0-GAO ❑ FIN DIR RECEIVED
GLAe'AO . ❑ FIRE CHIEF
[1.?r6NE' °--PWDIR MAY 1 1. 2001
MCLERKrORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT DS ❑ REC DIR S
Cfr ❑ UTIL DIR LO CITY COUNCI
.13 ❑ HR DIR
6
ro
0
\ ;► n, � _•fit
O
�� � �•+ � V 1 1 „
nau
�q kk
0 11 a•
{ +
1 yi
OI • N � � J
/ ,� ++ '/� � \ ��� —�4 $• '�<r j \ ftp '�.
£per/`�•
jOr / _�• / '\ '• - tea' 4 r� /'._-
{
h.
_ 4
K
t
J N �
1 n\�
CA
�� � • � .
■ ACAO ■ FIRE CHIEF
■ ATTORNEY ■ PW . -
• ■ •- c M POLICE CHF min 0 ■ ■ 0 ,7
■ DEPT HEADS ■ REC DIP
■ _ El UTIL • _ •
- --
3 HR DI � •