A proposal to tweak the way drivers interact with the unusual, 5-way intersection of El Portal Street and La Mesa Avenue should move forward, the city’s Mobility & Traffic Safety Commission decided Monday.
“Most locals do realize you (should) approach slowly” when driving through the intersection because it doesn’t have any stop signs, but not everyone is a local, commission Chair June Honsberger said as she described why she supported the engineering department’s latest recommendation.
“I feel this is a really simple solution,” she added.
Commissioner David Thile, who said he recently had witnessed a “little bit dicey” incident where vehicles had trouble figuring out who should yield first, said he, too, could support the proposal.
“You don’t want to get into the situation where you don’t do anything and there’s a tragic situation,” he said.
Located a few blocks west of Coast Highway 101, the odd intersection dates back decades and is similar to one found in Solana Beach, city Traffic Engineer Abe Bandegan said. It’s created because El Portal Street, as it runs westward toward the coast, splits into two streets when it intersects with La Mesa Avenue.
Bandegan said the city has received some complaints about the fact that the intersection has neither stop nor yield signs. Those complaints led the city engineering department to start crafting a solution last year. The initial proposal — a complex option that involved traffic circles and stop signs — was disliked by “95 percent” of the neighboring community, and that’s why this new, lower-key option is being contemplated, he said.
The latest plan calls for adding three stop signs on the El Portal portions of the 5-way intersection, but leaving the La Mesa parts uncontrolled. Centerline yellow striping also would be added to help drivers understand what they’re supposed to do.
At Monday’s meeting, Bandegan told the commissioners that he wanted their input on whether he should continue pursing this option, or “drop this from our work plan.” With a thumbs-up from the commission, he will next host a community meeting to collect residents’ comments and ultimately later bring it to the City Council for a vote, he said.
A handful of neighbors told commissioners Monday they had varying views about the new option. Some said they thought it was much better than the prior version, while others said the city should leave the intersection alone. City traffic history doesn’t indicate that there have been any fatalities, or even significant accidents, at the intersection, they noted
Jim O’Hara, a City Council member who represents the area and said he was speaking for several people who couldn’t attend the meeting, told commissioners that they should postpone the item. He said he believes the neighbors weren’t given enough advance notice that Monday’s meeting was happening. Some people told him they didn’t hear about it until late on Friday and city staff should have given people at least 72 hours’ week day notice, he said, adding, “It’s their neighborhood, they deserve to be here.”
Bandegan mentioned to the crowd that O’Hara was a newly elected council member and said he was referring to the legal public noticing requirements for formal public hearings — situations where the City Council or the Planning Commission are scheduled to vote on an item. Monday’s situation was not a public hearing, and city employees went beyond standard procedure and emailed meeting notifications to people who previously expressed an interest in the issue, in addition to posting agenda materials on the city’s web site, he said.
Originally Published:
