From: Marley Brezzo
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 1:25 PM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 2nd and 4th Intersection comments from Marley Brezzo Hello,
I have provided some alternative designs for this intersection that make improvements to Safety And Access when compared to the current proposed design from the city.
My main concern is the intent to trap pedestrians and bicyclists in the middle of 2nd St in the effort of West to East 2nd St Traffic. Requiring pedestrians to be stranded there makes no improvement for safety and comfort from the current intersection and in 20 years time the engineers and city government will view this intersection with the same concern and confusion as to why such and investment was made here while making no improvement in keeping people from being stuck in the middle of the road.
I have a lot to say about my personal experience with traffic safety involving bicycles. When I was in 5th grade in the early '90's my sister was driving me home and we came across an accident on Camden Ave in San Jose, newly installed bicycle lanes. I remember the scene vividly, I asked my sister, "Why is there a big yellow bag on the ground?" She told me that someone was killed, and we noticed a mangled bike stuck under the car involved. That night we found out that the individual killed was a close family friend, Trish Buckstin, who had been out on a family ride and was just a few hundred yards from her house. She was riding with her husband, a good friend of my fathers, and her son, a long time friend of mine, when an older driver experienced a medical emergency and lost control of his car.
When I was a freshman in highschool I was struck by a car while riding my bicycle to school. I had been riding along a frontage road that was protected from the main thoroughfare, Almaden Expressway, a road with a 45 mph speed limit. The driver was a 3rd grade teacher on her way to work at Greystone Elementary, she was mortified that she had struck a child. Her car catapulted me from my bike into the large post supporting the traffic signal. Had I not hit that pole I would have been in the lanes of traffic she was attempting to merge into and likely killed. My knee was severely injured, an injury I still deal with over 30 years later.
At the last city council meeting the Mayor made a very poor attempt at summarizing the concerns of my community along Marquard and Fremont streets and our thoughts on this intersection. Her words misrepresented us when she said this was an issue of "convenience versus safety".
No other representative of this city has presented these issues as goals that are against each other. No one has tried to wedge an issue with their dialogue to put bicycle safety against the goals of access of my neighborhood. In order to access downtown as a pedestrian I am required to cross 2nd street. I want this intersection to be as safe as possible. Please revise this opinion of our concerns to reflect reality, we residents want an intersection that provides "Safety AND Access".
My children are 6 and 9 years old. In a few years they will be using these crosswalks as they access the world on their own. If this city requires they be stuck in the middle of second street in favor of the efficiency of out of town traffic headed to the freeway. Or if they choose to ride their bike along West End they will be sharing a road with drivers looking to cut around traffic on Second St.
I will tell them, "This intersection is still unsafe, please do not cross here, or ride your bike along this path." Much the same as my mother asked me to not ride along the frontage roads of Almaden Expressway where I was struck by a car. Will my children also not listen to me because it's easier or quicker to put themselves in an unsafe situation? And if something happens, who is to blame? The minor who was using the crosswalks as designed? When I was struck, we inquired with the city engineers about improving the safety and visibility of the location it occured. We were told to put in a yield sign, someone would have to die there. Is that what it will take to not strand pedestrians in the middle of 2nd St?
Almaden is now a 50mph road, will this intersection and pedestrian island be improved some day long in the future? Or will a future city government deem that in the efforts of vehicle efficiency and the improvements on self-driving cars allows for 2nd St to have an increase in its speed limit to 45 mph?
This left turn is not being removed for safety, it is being removed for vehicle efficiency. And by making it a pedestrian island with the intent to separate the crossing signals, this city is literally leaving its citizens stuck in the middle of the road. Please revise this design.
I have provided iterations on the city's designs that I believe greatly improve the safety of the crossings and bicycle paths. West End should be a Community Access Road only. It should not connect to Second St in the West or East bound directions. My neighborhood can retain access to our roads with larger vehicles for maintaining our properties as I have brought up in past communications. These are tentable solutions I am presenting. New signals are not being added, costs to develop should be relatively the same.
Just two years ago a light was added to East St and 2nd. The crossing there was not deemed inefficient when it was developed. That crossing is possible in a single light cycle, as should be the foundation of the updates to this design. If it was suitable 2 years ago, and just 2 blocks away along the same road, what makes this intersection's function any different?
Please consider these modifications to the design, and do not misrepresent the members of my community and our share interest in the safety of this intersection.
Thank you,
Marley Brezzo
Below you will find my changes to the proposed design-
May 5, 2025
San Rafael City Council
1400 5th Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
RE: City Council 2026-28 Goals & Objectives
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
Sustainable San Rafael heartily endorses the comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction programs included in the
Sustainability and Resilience section of your 3-year Goals and Objectives matrix: D.1.3 Electric Vehicle Acceleration
Strategy; D.1.5 Building Electrification Roadmap; and D.1.4 SB 1383 implementation. Pursued robustly, these three
programs together could reduce San Rafael's GHG emissions by 85%, enroute to net zero emissions in the next 20 years.
By sequestering atmospheric carbon, trees are vital to
address the remaining 15% needed to reach net zero. The current matrix is remiss in not mentioning trees and their role in sequestering carbon, beautifying the city, making walking more comfortable, cleaning air, and cooling neighborhoods from rapidly intensifying heat. We recommend that you add the following language to your Goals and Objectives:
“Item E.3.5: Finish revision of the City’s Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.12) in accordance with General Plan 2040 policies CDP 3.5 (Street Trees), C-1.16 (Urban Forestry), and C-1.17 (Tree Management), and initiate work on program CDP-3.5A (Tree Master Plan).”
The recently completed LIDAR inventory of street trees and other public assets provides the information needed to
complete the long-overdue revision of the Tree Ordinance, as promised by the Director of Public Works two years ago after over a year of careful community review. It's now time to move forward.
Thank you for your thoughtful guidance to a better future.
Sincerely,
Ben Snyder,
Co-President
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Annika Osborn, Co-President
Ben Snyder, Co-President
William Carney, Vice President
Miles Smith, Secretary
Greg Brockbank
Kay Karchevski
Kiki La Porta
Rina Lopez
Phil Muller
Marisa Nordstrom
Stuart Siegel
415.302.0110
San Rafael, CA 94901
May 5, 2025
Dear Councilmembers, Mayor Colin,
Re: Study Session on proposed 2026-2028 goals and objectives Cc to Public Works Director April Miller, Deputy Director Jonathan Schellin; City Manager Cristine Alilovich, San Rafael Tree Committee Members Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the city’s proposed 2026-2028 goals and objectives during today’s Study Session. I look forward to being in attendance.
There is one unstated goal that is germane to four of the five goals listed: “Economic and Neighborhood Vitality” (A), Equity, Access and Opportunity for All” (B) “Sustainability and Resilience” (D) and “Mobility and Infrastructure” (E), and that is a comprehensive revision of the city’s tree ordinance that would apply to street trees, urban forestry, tree management along with the initiation of a tree master plan as recommended in the forward-thinking San General Plan 2040.
We recommend the inclusion of:
“Item E.3.5: Complete revision of the City’s Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.12) in accordance with General Plan 2040 policies CDP 3.5 (Street Trees), C-1.16 (Urban Forestry), and C-1.17 (Tree Management), and initiate work on program CDP-3.5A (Tree Master Plan).”
The San Rafael Tree Group, a citizens’ collaboration of environmentalists and neighborhood leaders worked faithfully with the Director and staff of the DPW to produce mutually acceptable revisions of the City’s tree ordinance. This was truly an engaged collaborative effort, and we ask you to revive the proposed ordinance, honoring our status as a Tree City USA and joining the ranks of many innovative municipalities who have overcome obstacles, creating coherent tree policies and practices. The recently completed LIDAR inventory of street trees and other public assets provides the information needed to complete the long-promised Tree Ordinance, as promised by the Director of Public Works two years ago after over a year of careful community review.
It's now time to move forward!
With great appreciation for your consideration,
Amy Likover
San Rafael Tree Group Chair