Fullerton council rejects proposed signal at Euclid and Valley View, directs staff to pursue alternatives

Fullerton City Council on April 7 rejected a recommended traffic signal at the Euclid Street and Valley View Drive intersection and directed staff to pursue alternatives including restriping and signal timing changes.

Traffic consultant Mister Roseman told the council the Transportation & Circulation Commission voted 3–2 to recommend signalization after studies and outreach to roughly 973 nearby homes. He said state signal criteria are driven in this case by high traffic volumes on Valley View and that, “in my professional opinion…this is the time for decision to end this matter,” urging the council to move forward with grant seeking and design features intended to reduce neighborhood impacts.

Residents who oppose the signal said the safety warrants and pedestrian counts do not justify installation and warned the light would induce cut‑through traffic and faster speeds in a narrow residential street. Manuel Walker, who lives on the 800 block of Valley View Drive, told the council the report “does not meet the crash warrant or signalization” and warned the recommendation relied more on judgment than clear safety thresholds. Opponents cited the absence of sidewalks along parts of Valley View and questioned the project’s estimated cost and the certainty of grant funding.

Other residents and several council members argued the intersection presents a public‑safety risk. Carrie Hosazawa, a long‑time neighborhood resident, said follow‑up studies show “excessive speeding” and decreased sight distance on the approach to Euclid, and urged the council to act to prevent injuries involving children walking to nearby Golden Hill Elementary.

Council deliberations returned repeatedly to two tensions: the consultant’s findings that warrants and traffic volumes support signalization versus neighborhood concern that any signal would create new cut‑through routes, and whether less‑permanent measures could reasonably address immediate risks. The consultant said some crash types (t‑bone collisions) are more likely to be reduced by a signal while rear‑end collisions can increase under signal control.

Mayor Pro Tem Nick Dunlap moved — and Council member Valencia seconded — a motion to reject the proposed signal and direct staff to develop alternatives for Euclid including restriping and timing adjustments with existing signals. The motion passed 3–2: Valencia, Dunlap and the mayor voted yes; Council members Charles and Zahra voted no. The council did not specify a date certain but asked staff for a timely follow up and enforcement measures on Euclid in the interim.

The council’s direction preserves several next steps: staff will examine additional measures (striping, speed displays, enforcement and use of existing crossing infrastructure), report back on feasible mitigations, and pursue grant opportunities only if appropriate. The council’s vote ends consideration of the recommended signal for now but leaves the safety problem under active review by staff.

The meeting record shows the consultant and multiple residents will continue to be parties to any revised recommendations; staff said it will return with concrete options after further review.

What's next: staff will prepare an update describing practicable alternatives and enforcement options; no installation timetable or funding commitment was adopted at this meeting.