Fullerton residents are still waiting for safer daily commutes after officials narrowly rejected new traffic signals after questioning its cost and effectiveness.
It comes after city officials authorized overhauling an intersection along Associated Road late last year after a couple of Cal State Fullerton students were injured, with one student dying from their injuries.
[Read: Fullerton Overhauls Safety for Bicyclists Following Recent Collisions]
City officials have also been grappling with a projected $13.7 million budget deficit.
Last month, council members voted 3-2 during a meeting to reject a proposed signalization. The vote also directed staff to research more alternatives for safety measures on Euclid Street, including striping and improving existing traffic signals.
Councilmembers Shana Charles and Ahmad Zahra voted no, meaning they supported the new traffic signal. They argued signalization was the best option available after reviewing several alternatives to reduce car accidents.
Editors’ Note: This dispatch is part of the Voice of OC Collegiate News Service, working with student journalists to cover public policy issues across Orange County. If you would like to submit your own student media project related to Orange County civics or if you have any response to this work, contact admin@voiceofoc.org.
This $650,000 traffic light project was proposed for an intersection at Euclid Street, Valley Drive and Valley View Place that has been the site of six car accidents within the last two years.
One of the residents who said she originally brought safety concerns to city council three years ago called out visibility issues and excessive speeding in a comment during the meeting.
“Multiple traffic studies have documented the significant safety risks at this location,” she said during the April 7 meeting. “The study in 2023 found a lateral curve at Euclid and Valley View, which decreases visibility, and it contributed to several accidents.”
“The reason we’re doing this is because of the public safety for anyone traveling north or south on Euclid or interacting with this intersection,” she continued. “This, in my opinion, presents a significant safety risk for families transporting their children.”
Mayor Fred Jung said this isn’t the first time the council has considered this item.
He said he found the signal “unnecessary.”
“I caution myself personally when we establish permanent structures like this,” Jung said at the meeting. “I find it an unnecessary solution to a predominant vehicle culture that exists statewide. We should better enforce the unsafe speeding that exists not only on Euclid, but more importantly on Valley View because drivers use Valley View as a cut-through.”
The discussion comes after previous meetings with the city staff presenting suggestions of safety measures to be taken at this intersection after the multiple collisions.
David Roseman, contract traffic engineer, presented this project and said it could include potential grant funding.
Roseman explained that one criteria for signalization is if the intersection has seen five or more accidents within a year that could have been prevented by a traffic signal.
As part of the report, Roseman said that only two out of the six accidents that had occurred within the last two years at this cross-section of roads on Euclid Street could have been prevented by a traffic signal.
In a public comment to the city council, Fullerton resident John Custer said they need to prioritize other needs.
“Fullerton needs to focus on macro issues that will make our city desirable,” Custer said. “Fix our streets, fix our sidewalks, fix our infrastructure, not just putting a little light in our neighborhood that most people don’t want.”
Some council members questioned if the inclusion of a traffic light would prevent car accidents at all.
Roseman responded with an explanation of how some crashes may be prevented.
“If you have a t-bone accident, traffic signals are really good at controlling them, because it controls the intersection,” Roseman said.
He said intersections generally don’t prevent rear-end collisions and sometimes can even create rear-end collisions since traffic signals force drivers to stop.
Councilmember Shana Charles expressed concern for the nearby residents.
“It is all one street, so around 111 houses on this street, and we need to figure out a way that everyone can live together and be safe,” Charles said.
As the city faces a budget crisis, some residents expressed concerns about the $650,000 cost and if this money could be allocated elsewhere for the city.
[Read: Fullerton Plays Hot Potato With Budget Crisis]
Although Roseman discussed submitting the project for grant funding, some residents questioned if traffic signals are the best project to spend money on.
The proposal has been in the making since 2023, when a preliminary traffic safety review of the intersection was conducted and a comprehensive traffic signal study was recommended. The study was then conducted in 2024 and followed by a neighborhood meeting where traffic signals were proposed.
On Feb. 3, 2025, the Transportation & Circulation Commission reviewed a staff recommendation to install the traffic signals, yet moved the item back to discussion in March 2025.
Since then, the item has moved back and forth between the commission, data collection, public comments of concern, city staff and more, up until the recent meeting in April.
Resident Lisa Bruto lives on Valley View and shared concerns of the project’s $650,000 price tag.
“Instead of getting a light that’s gonna argue with people on their neighborhood, how about putting it towards some of our streets that we drive down every day that feels like we’re gonna get flat tires.”
Collegiate News Service Editor Angelina Hicks contributed to this report.