Upon reviewing the footage, we observe that the vehicle in question approaches a pedestrian crossing in the pedestrian lane from the driver's left in a 2 lane bi-directional road with a clearly visble yellow line dividing opposing directional traffic. As visual confirmed and instrumentally confirmed, while the pedestrian is in view of the car's forward motion, the pedestrian at no point crosses the Yellow line into the the direction for the vehicle's forward direction. Instruments onboard the vehicle clearly demonstrate that it is tracking the pedestrian's movement and confirm that the pedestrian has not crossed the yellow line before the vehicle has exited the crosswalk space.
We can also see that there is no signage indicating a stop is required by the vehicle. The only signage are two yellow signs alerting drivers to the crosswalk on either side of the road. Additionally, a temporary yellow sign has been erected in the center of the crosswalk which contains the traffic symbols for yeild and the symbol for pedestrian on a white field. Additionally on the white field between the two symbols word of two three letters can be made out, but the footage is not of significant quality to read the letters. It likely is the word is either "to" or "for". Above the white field additional letters, which upon close view, Spell the words "State Law". The combined message of the temporary signage thus indicates in full: "State Law Yeild to/for Pedestrians".
U.S. Driving Laws tend to be universal and it is advised that drivers are to follow the rules of the road as indicated by all signage and Law Enforcement Officers instructions. When the instructions are in conflict with the law, instructions on temporary signage is considered to override permeant signage, and LEO or Construction safety personal instructions override all signage. As such, this indicates that the public may yield to pedestrians rather than stop.
The California Driver's Handbook indicates that the legal definition of yield signs is
Slow down and be ready to stop to let any vehicle, bicyclist, or pedestrian pass before you proceed.
If converted to a traffic light, Yield corresponds to the Yellow light, which is a warning to motorists that they are about to lose the right of way through the intersection. At this point, the motorist must make an educated choice to proceed through the intersection or stop. The deciding factor should be if you are unable to stop prior to entering the intersection.
Since you must slow for a yield in preparation for the stop, we turn back to the vehicle's instruments to see if the vehicle was responsive. While the vehicle at no point indicates that the the sign was observed and acted on, we can see at the video start that the vehicle is traveling at a speed of 26 mph. As it approaches the crosswalk and registers the pedestrian, the speed drops to 24 mph which it continues to travel at as it leaves the crosswalk and for the duration of the video beyond that.
Assuming that the sign was erected by an agent of the state acting within lawful reason, the sign would supersede any signage that would require a full and complete stop by permanent signage, which does not exists, or the legal requirement, which is also not supported by the cited California law, which indicates that one need not stop at a crosswalk so long as one is prepared to should a pedestrian cross the crosswalk. It also makes no law that the right of way is yielded while a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. Presumably the oncoming traffic would resume forward motion the moment that the pedestrian is clear of their lane of travel provided no other pedestrian is in the space. Only with stop lights with a solid red light does traffic lose right of way for the duration of the light's cycle regardless of the presence of or lack of presence of cross traffic. For signs or flashing traffic lights, the Right of Way is yeilded to the oncoming traffic for the durration of time that traffic is present in the intersection. Such features are not present here.
As such, without any further evince, it is clear that the self-driving car was acting within the confines of the law in this instance. Where I the judge of this case, I would rule in favor of the party legally responsible for the car's driving but would find sufficient cause for an investigation into the self-driving car's programing to determine to what degree, if any, it took the temporary sign into consideration when making this determination, and if it would alter its behavior had the instructions been different.
Edit: While I am not a lawyer or judge, I do have experience in coding autonomous vehicles, specifically with relation to how such vehicles should interpret visual traffic control indicators that a lidar system (used to detect the pedestrian) alone would not pick up. My particular work was with a vehicle that used lidar, live video processing, and GPS inputs to inform its decision making and whether the vehicle was safe to move or needed to turn around and find another route.