Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Art topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After heated debate, council approves temporary red‑white‑blue crosswalk for July 4th parade route
Summary
Council approved a temporary red‑white‑blue decorative crosswalk on Alvarado Street to commemorate the U.S. 250th anniversary after hours of public testimony for and against the design; council directed staff to clarify policy and funding for maintenance and removal.
The Monterey City Council voted June 16 to install a temporary patriotic crosswalk — red, white and blue ladder markings between the legal white crosswalk lines — along the city’s Fourth‑of‑July parade route on Alvarado Street to mark the United States’ 250th anniversary. The vote followed an hour of public testimony reflecting sharply divided views on painted crosswalks.
Public Works Director Andrea Renie told the council the design keeps the legally required white ladder markings and places decorative red and blue color between them; the installation was requested as a temporary, one‑year demonstration timed to the July 4 parade. "We have the legally required white crosswalk and ladder style markings that remain unchanged," she said, noting the paint and removal costs would be covered by private donations and that the colors would match flag tones as closely as paint suppliers permit.
Speakers in favor framed the crosswalk as patriotic and nonpolitical. Local supporters, including veterans and representatives of the OCO Arts Foundation, described donations already raised to cover installation and possible repaints. Local donor Nelson Big said the crosswalk “honors the United States history and our United States military” and donated toward the effort on the council dais.
Opponents ranged from traffic‑safety advocates to residents warning of visual distraction and concerns about long‑term maintenance. Several speakers asked how this request would be reconciled with the city’s prior approach to the Rainbow crosswalk and whether the city would be committed to repainting if the motif faded or was vandalized. Caller Nina Bey, a registered caller during public comment, stated plainly: "Streets are for driving and the less distractions the better. I oppose colored crosswalks." Others urged consistent policy across crosswalk requests.
Councilmembers debated process and precedent. Some members sought explicit assurances that the crosswalk would be temporary, funded by donations for installation and eventual removal, and that staff would return with clearer crosswalk policy guidance. Councilmember Barber asked whether the crosswalk is a “flag” and reminded the council that she opposed any treatment that suggested the flag touches the ground; staff clarified this is decorative coloring, not a flag installation.
Councilmember Smith, who introduced the request and organized donor support, said the timing was intended to honor the 250th anniversary and the parade route and that the community had raised funds quickly to cover the cost. "It took about five days to raise the $3,800," she said, noting broad neighborhood and business support.
Outcome: Council approved the temporary crosswalk under staff conditions (private funding for installation and removal and staff authority to determine repaint/removal timing). Council also asked staff to return with a clarified crosswalk policy about temporary and permanent treatments, maintenance responsibility, and material standards.
Why it matters: The vote highlights continuing tension between public art and uniform traffic standards. The council asked staff to tighten policy guidance so future requests are treated consistently and so the city can manage maintenance, vandalism risk and the community expectations about permanence.
