Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pacific Grove council directs traffic study for Lighthouse/Central/Congress intersection after public safety concerns
Summary
Council voted unanimously to direct staff and the traffic engineer to assess stop signs and intersection reconfigurations at Lighthouse/Central/Congress after residents and the Traffic Safety Commission described the junction as confusing and hazardous for pedestrians. The council asked for concept drawings, cost estimates and alternatives.
The Pacific Grove City Council on Aug. 20 directed staff to consult the traffic engineer and return with concept drawings, estimated costs and alternatives for the Lighthouse/Central/Congress intersection, after sustained public comment about speeding and pedestrian safety.
Mayor Pro Tem Joe Emilio, reporting as the council liaison to the Traffic Safety Commission, presented the commission’s recommendation to assess installing stop signs in both travel directions and possible intersection reconfiguration. Lester Brown, chair of the Traffic Safety Commission, told the council the intersection is “confusing” and that drivers sometimes do not know who must yield.
Residents testified in support of traffic-calming measures. One frequent downtown pedestrian said the current 15 mph signage is often ignored when westbound drivers accelerate through the downtown approach. Angela Lansendimer told the council she “absolutely, wholeheartedly support[ed] the 4 stop signs,” citing difficulty crossing while mobility‑impaired. Another commenter urged stronger enforcement of speed and stop‑sign violations in addition to engineering changes.
Council members debated whether to limit the study to stop signs or to direct the engineer to consider a range of remedies (stop signs, signage, crosswalk improvements, islands or flashing beacons). Council voted unanimously to move forward with the study; staff will return with concept drawings, estimated costs and any recommended enforcement or signage changes.
No immediate traffic devices were installed at the meeting; action was a referral to staff and the city’s traffic engineer for analysis and a report back to council.
