Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Commission continues Aliso Hills crosswalk discussion, asks staff for more options and costs
Loading...
Summary
After a staff study recommended a high‑visibility crosswalk at Aliso Hills and El Segundo and signage discouraging crossing at La Cienega, the commission continued Item 4.2 for additional staff analysis and community input; the motion carried 3–1 with one absence/recusal.
Laguna Hills traffic staff presented a study on Sept. 17 evaluating two Aliso Hills Drive intersections — at La Cienega Street and at El Segundo Street — and recommended installing a high‑visibility marked crosswalk with curb ramps at Aliso Hills & El Segundo while posting signage to discourage pedestrian crossings at La Cienega because of limited sight distance.
The consultant’s field observations found one non‑correctable collision at each intersection during the five‑year review period and did not recommend a multi‑way stop at either location because vehicular and pedestrian volumes did not meet warrant criteria. For La Cienega, the consultant recommended prohibiting crossings at the intersection and directing pedestrians to a safer crossing location at El Segundo instead.
Several residents told the commission they favored a marked crossing at El Segundo and asked staff to consider east‑leg treatment and placement details. One resident asked whether RRFB (Rectangular Rapid‑Flashing Beacon) crossings are audible for visually impaired pedestrians; staff confirmed modern RRFB installations include an adjustable audible signal for ADA compliance and that RRFB lights are active only when the push button is used.
Commissioners debated the tradeoffs: some worried that a ‘‘no crossing’’ sign would create confusing precedent across the city; others emphasized the need to separate right‑of‑way and speed concerns and to consider the overall roadway classification and pedestrian patterns before committing to construction. Commissioner Miller recused himself from Item 4.2 due to proximity; staff and the chair confirmed quorum and procedure. The commission voted to continue Item 4.2 to the next Traffic Commission meeting and asked staff to return with additional options, cost estimates and clearer exhibits for community review. The motion carried with three commissioners in favor, one opposed and one absence/recusal.
Next steps: staff will work with the consultant to present alternative crossing configurations, estimated costs (including curb ramps and ADA work), and recommended signage placement at the continued hearing.
