The Consent Calendar contains various items that have either been discussed at prior meetings or are thought to not need discussion – and are all passed in one vote – with the exception of items pulled by members of the public or councilmembers who want more information.

At the March 4, 2025 council meeting the consent calendar passed 5-0 with exception of Items 3, 8,  and 10 which were removed for further discussion at the end of the meeting. Two of the items (3 & 8) involved lots of interest from the public as shown below.

This item was pulled by Councilmember Zahra at the request of a community member, and was passed after contentious discussion in a 3-2 vote (Zahra, Charles voting against sending a letter of opposition to the clean air rules)

The item proposed a letter of objection be sent to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) concerning its proposed rules 1111 and 1121 which require a shift from natural gas furnaces and water heaters to all-electric units to begin in 2026 with the purpose of reducing emissions across LA,  Orange, Riverside, and  San Bernardino counties.

The rules would phase out existing natural gas furnaces and water heaters by setting new emission requirements for manufactures and sellers of appliances.

The rules do not affect existing residential use of gas appliances – although new financial incentives for those wishing to switch to electric are planned.  Unfortunately the agenda item was apparently written up before the amendments to the rules were put in place so the information was both inaccurate and out of date.

For more information on the proposed rules and amendments visit

City Manager Levitt said the city followed the lead of the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) which

voted unanimously (15 yes with 2 abstentions) to send letters objecting to the rules at its Nov. 21, 2024 meeting (before

the SCAQMD February 13, 2025 amendments to the rules were put in place).

For more information visit  https://www.occog.com/

Both Councilmember Zahra and Mayor Protem Charles pointed out that the information in the letter of objection was outdated since the rules had been amended at the Feb 13, 2025 SCQMD meeting to drop mandates banning gas appliances for existing residential use. CM Levitt said while that was true the city and, he believed OCCOG, still had issues concerning the economic impact on single family homes as well as other buildings and entities (which he did not name).

•Josh Ferguson said he would be interested in what changes had been made since it was correct to oppose the original rules. He said the state has a history of mandating environmental issues and not caring about the ramifications. “We saw that when California decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant and when they were going to decommission the Mission Diablo Canyon Power Plant, which they had to turn around and not decommission because it would have been so destabilizing for our electrical grid. We saw that when all the money was given out to Ivanpah Solar Power facility*  that is now being decommissioned because it relied on natural gas to begin with and now we have a ton of mirrors that will go to nothing because it wasn’t thought out very well. California doesn’t have a very strong electrical grid as it is.  We have rolling blackouts in the summer and other power concerns exacerbated by California and other states getting rid of hydroelectric power. So if we’re going to talk about how we power things until we have an actual thing to replace stuff with – because “renewables” ain’t it – then we shouldn’t be getting rid of natural gas,” he said. Natural gas was one of the cheapest forms of energy allowing people to cook and heat water.. And again electric prices keep going up –  you can look at the California Public Utilities Commission and how they raise rates because everyone likes to complain about Edison but that’s the State of California raising those rates. People thought, back in the day, that electricity was going to be so plentiful and easily attainable that it would basically be free. And the big corporations were against that – but now it’s all super expensive and every year it gets more expensive over every category. And then there’s the Duck Curve. So, if we care about people with financial issues, if we care about actually having better power then we should look at the advice of people like Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, where he is in favor of environmental issues but says do it smartly.”  Ferguson said getting rid of natural gas because of emissions made no sense until there was something to replace it.  He said he would like staff to explain what AQMD is doing – and if they are trying to curb natural gas – usually a cheap commodity for people to use.

•A resident  who said he lives in an apartment with gas appliances and wished he didn’t said, “The other day water boiled up over the pot and extinguished the flame and gas was going everywhere. So, I don’t like gas – it has to be phased out of homes eventually, and heat pumps are a good way to heat in Southern California because our heating demands are not too high.”  He corrected the previous speaker (Ferguson) “who said we got rid of large hydro in the state and renewables don’t work” – I’m looking at the website of the California Independent System Operator (https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply) which has a summary of what happened today on the power grid. Today at noon we had 20,000 megawatts renewable on the grid, 2,275 in natural gas, Diablo Canyon Nuclear is flat at  2,274. But also, in the middle of the day, we had 5,500 megawatts of batteries charging – and coming to the “duck curve”* time where everyone was freaking out a few years ago about how renewables and solar dropping off would ruin the grid and cause blackouts – batteries are double the amount of nuclear in the state. Batteries have really changed everything in the state about renewables. Currently –  right now we have almost 2,700 megawatts of large hydro. Natural gas does pick up in the night with 6,900 megawatts,” he said.

•Juan Ha, a  Fullerton College student,  cited statistics – “More than 7-million residents in the South Coast Air Quality District basin breathe the dirtiest air in the nation. The area has consistently failed to meet state and federal air quality standards for over 30 years. SCAQMD can not meet the legally binding standards without reducing emissions from gas furnaces and water heaters. [Gas appliances] create seven times more nitrous oxide pollution than a power plant, he said, “and contribute to 76,000 asthma attacks annually.” He asked each council member to think of a member of their family who has asthma and “realize that by opposing these clean air rules you are contributing to their condition.”

•Todd Harrison  said “I’m an engineer, a scientist – even if retired – so, yes, to me global warming is a real risk. I wish it weren’t so politicized.  I worked in designing landfill analyzers that measured the gas that they were burning the CO2 from methane because it comes out of landfills in great quantities and has to be pumped away and burned for the sake of reducing the CO2 problem.  So I am generally for incentivizing replacement of gas appliances but,… I live in a mobilehome where there is a fixed limit on the amount of electric power that can be delivered to my home: 50 Amps for everything. I can only operate one major wattage drawing electrical appliance at a time. And what are the odds of park owner John Saunders upgrading the electricity for homeowners? What about  landlords of apartment dwellers?” He said a different solution needed to be found for those examples.

•A resident  said “it is interesting to see what brings people together and separates them.” With a UCI degree in environmental sciences and an early adapter of solar which he has had for ten years,  owner of an EV but also ten gas guzzling cars which he enjoys said “I think this is another regulation that’s overstepping – I don’t think there’s any reason we need to start dictating in this city what people should be putting in their homes or not. Any option you have for power will create pollution. The big push behind batteries and EVs and all that – not only has it created an undue burden on the electrical system but also a situation where people are told not to charge their cars during certain hours. We are also going to have to produce that electricity with coal or other mechanisms that create pollution. We don’t need to dictate here in the city – let the free market decide. If it’s a better technology, cheaper, more efficient people will naturally go to it. But don’t make it a mandate where people have to follow a rule that costs them money unnecessarily.

•David Martinez  speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network urged council to vote no on item 3. This resolution opposes critical air quality regulation Rules 1111 and 1121 that protect public health by reducing harmful emissions from gas appliances. Orange County has some of the worst air pollution in the nation – ranked first for high ozone levels – putting our community at risk for asthma, lung disease and even premature death. The American Lung Association and health care professionals across the region strongly support these regulations because they directly reduce the nitrogen oxides that contribute to our dangerous air quality. Additionally transitioning to cleaner electrical appliances is more affordable than ever. Federal, State, and local incentives can cover thousands of dollars in costs making clean energy appliances cost competitive with gas and in some cases more affordable.” He said Fullerton’s resolution letter opposing the rules used out-dated information. “The new AQMD proposal no longer impacts residents. Manufacturers are who are being regulated by this proposal. This is not about banning gas – it’s about improving public health without burdening our community. Fullerton should stand with its residents and not industry lobbyists. Please prioritize clean air and public health by voting no on agenda Item 3.

Mayor Jung without asking for council comments, said “I will move the item”  – but Councilmember Zahra said he had some questions.

Councilmember Zahra  made some clarifications, “For those who mentioned this was overreach from the state – this is not from the state. The governing body [SCAQMD] is multiple cities in Southern California, a regional body of members from LA, Orange and San Bernardino counties.” He said the letter merely states that we are supporting this – or not supporting this. So nothing is being imposed here locally whether it [the letter] goes out in the negative or positive. The actual SCQAMD meeting where this will be decided happens on May 2 – so anyone passionate about it can attend that meeting,” he said.

Mayor Jung  “Is there a question somewhere in there?”

Councilmember Zahra  passing over Jung’s unnecessary interruption went on to say – “The clean air rules are for manufacturer’s not residents and the rules transition gradually. So no one is going to come and take your gas stove. If we are looking at this from a public health view – he said we do have high air pollution in Orange County – those are facts. I think we should stay out of this discussion for now, or – in my opinion – we should support public health. So I am not in favor of sending this letter out.”

Councilmember Dunlap  said “I move the item.”

Councilmembers Jung, Valencia and Dunlap voted to send a letter opposing the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s clean air rules. Councilmembers Zahra and Charles voted against sending the letter of opposition.

=======================================================================

This item was pulled by Councilmember Dunlap at request of community members.

At the end of a contentious discussion council voted unanimously to send the issue back to TCC for better notification, further data, and traffic mitigation if necessary and to look into the possibility of turning the Hiltscher Trail pedestrian/bike/horse signal into a stoplight instead of the Euclid/Valley View  location.

The City Traffic Consultant gave an update on issues of the area. He said “For a number of years residents living near that intersection have expressed traffic safety concerns.”  In 2023 city traffic engineers conducted a preliminary safety review and recommended a full study. That study was initiated in Fall 2024 and found the intersection satisfied 4 of 9 warrants (various criteria) used to determine if a traffic signal is needed. The intersection met all three of the traffic flow warrants suggesting the intersection is a good candidate for a traffic signal. Currently there is one car per minute on Valley View coming from the east.

The intersection also met the spacing warrant which tracks the space between signals. The crash experience warrant says there has to be five accidents correctable by a traffic signal within a 12-month period. This intersection had 6 crashes in two years – two of which were preventable with a traffic signal – so that was not met. There are too few pedestrians for the pedestrian warrant and three other connditions did not apply. In February the issue came before the Transportation & Circulation Committee where people spoke for and against the signal before the committee voted 3-1 to recommend a signal. 116 properties in the vicinity were notified of both the TTC meeting and this one. The proposed action before you is to approve the new traffic signal at Euclid and Valley View. Approving it allows design work and the seeking of state or federal grant funding to help pay for it to begin.

Councilmember Dunlap  asked if other traffic calming measures had been tried and what about the Hiltscher Trail signal? The consultant said signage, restriping, and resurfacing the road had not helped and that some severe accidents had occurred.  They had looked at the Hiltscher Trail pedestrian signal but decided it was not a good location. There are two patterns for the accidents north/south on Euclid that have occurred said the consultant – 1) People driving on Euclid that lose control for some reason – driving too fast or incapacitated, or 2) people making a left from Euclid onto the side street and making a bad decision on the speed of oncoming cars.

•Manuel Walker a City Investment Advisory Committee member and a professional engineer who lives nearby the proposed signal location urged the council to vote against the motion.  ‘We think staff overlooked some key details.  The staff report fails to account for the potential impacts on residents on Valley View.  As a father of school-aged children we have to cross Valley View Drive for my kids to get to school so we are always concerned about traffic and anything that could increase that traffic is a concern to myself and my family. A lot of us are concerned about formalizing the ingress and egress of our neighborhood. The traffic light would bring undue attention to our neighborhood and formalize our street as a cut-through from Euclid to Harbor. We could also see a backup of cars on Valley View essentially locking residents in their driveways.” He said he did not receive notice of the TTC meeting and believed many others did not as well. He recommended a no vote on the signal or at least send it back to the TTC or INRAC for further study.

•Kevin Bass a resident of Valley View Place a city planner who works with traffic engineers in another city said “Valley View is already a collector street – As seen from the city study there is already a large number coming through – what we are trying to do is protect not just ourselves but also the people who drive the Euclid corridor. The turning movements need to be protected as much as the speed has to be protected. We get traffic warrants all the time where you don’t even meet those requirements and still get signals. Here we have 4 out of 9. You should trust your staff on this.. They are your professional experts and would have weight in any legal discussion.  I understand there will be winners and losers on this one but ultimately what it comes down to is that we have already crossed the bridge, the study has been done.  If the study is ignored I’m pretty sure the next accident will come and the city will be asked why it did not follow the study.

•Stephanie Valdez a resident living on the corner of the intersection had “a car come through the back wall of our yard – where our children were playing with their friends just the day before. That was very frightening. Some other points I would like to bring up – we saw the increase in accidents happen when Euclid was repaved – and its great and we do thank the city for that –  but those potholes were slowing down traffic. As far as cutting through on Valley View – our neighbors – we all cut through the Valley View neighborhood… because there is no way anyone is going straight across Valley View to our culdesac. It’s just a matter of time before a fatality happens on this corner. I would love you to approve this tonight. ”

•A resident who has lived on Vista Lane which ties between Fern and Valley View his whole life and feels “lucky to get a house just a few houses away from where I grew up,” said that 30 years ago when this came up drivers were cutting through the alley at high speeds to avoid backed-up traffic at the light on Valley View. Pretty regularly the neighbors drive down Vista Lane at 5-miles-an-hour because there are ten children under 12-years-old that all have their houses coming out onto that alley. I would oppose the light going in at Valley View because it would cause a hazard and worse living condition for me and my neighbors who live on that alley.

•Karen Enling who lives on Valley View Place the cul-de-sac – There are 30 licensed drivers living on Valley View Place. None of us go straight across. When we leave our houses we go out make a right and then left on Fern (where there  is a protected left turn lane) and then cut through the alley – to Valley View – that’s how we all get out of our neighborhood. We also have only one way in and out of our culdesac neighborhood. And if we are forced to only make a right what does that mean for emergency vehicles?  We have four school buses and two adult daycare vans that come onto our street every day. We have a lot of delivery and service trucks. So to restrict our access in and out is a little unfair. I am very curious from a legal liability perspective – now that we have this traffic study that shows the only way to reduce the speed on Euclid and protect that intersection is signalization – the next time someone comes through Stephanie’s wall or my wall or the house catty-corner across the street. What is the city’s liability? People run the light at Hiltscher Trail – it is not effective at slowing traffic. My 17-year-old won’t get her driver’s license because of the trauma she’s watched. I do feel for people who think there might be a little more traffic – but we know, and the data shows that putting a light in will save lives.

•Lauren a Trustee for the high school district and resident on N. Valley View Place said one of the accidents I’m going to talk about involved a student from Sunny Hills High who was in a very bad accident – the one where a car went through my neighbors wall. So this isn’t just about us – but about everyone who comes and goes on our street and onto the other side of Valley View as well. I am here to ask the council to follow the recommendation of the city planners, the traffic managers, the traffic commission, and to vote for the installation of the light on the corner of Valley View and Euclid. In the past 4 years we’ve had six accidents. In the past year a car has gone through my neighbors wall endangering the life of their child and family, my friend’s child and anyone else who happened to be nearby. Every day I watch cars speeding down Euclid and try to gauge how fast they are going. I have given up trying to turn left on my street. Every night I listen to the cars racing down Euclid and pray that no one, including my children going or coming home from work, will be hurt on their way out of our one exit/entrance neighborhood. You can not see the cars coming towards that corner from the north until they crest the hill at which point you must try to determine how fast they are going in order to make a safe turn. All the drivers in my home from 83 to teenagers turn right on Euclid, left on Fern, and sometimes into the alley instead of making a dangerous left turn from our street. If you want to reduce traffic on the alley – get us a light. Listen to the professionals and put a light on this corner for the safety…” (her mic was cut off in mid sentence).

•Josh Ferguson who doesn’t live in the area but has friends who do, said “I’m mostly agnostic about this.” He went on to say he didn’t really think about using Valley View as a way to get to Harbor before – but he would if there was a traffic light there.

•Laura Knight a lifetime resident of Fullerton who lives on Fern Drive said she was representing some of the people living on Fern and Woods who oppose the signal. “We think it would bring a lot of traffic to our area. We have already heard that a lot of people already do cut over to Fern. We already have several lights on that street – the one at the trail, the one on Euclid and Chapman, and the one on little Chapman, and if you bring another signal it’s just going to back up traffic on Euclid. We will not be able to exit at Fern, we have the school there, the buses – it’s just going to cause more traffic. And the gentleman said he sent notices out about the meetings – but I only received this last one.   She said she heard this was pretty much a done deal but she hoped council would take the time to talk to the residents because she said most are against the signal.

•Mike Scott a 51-year Fullertonian living on the 600 block of Valley View. He gave some history from 30 years ago about the Hughes traffic that was impacting the neighborhood back then. Lots of meetings were held, he said, with then Mayor Molly McClanahan, Paul Smith the director. We did get stop signs put up but people just sped between them. I feel sorry for those who have had accidents. We’ve had cars flip over right in the 600 block and it’s dangerous. We’ve raised three kids. I didn’t get a notice but heard about this meeting. Earlier he said he had parked at the intersection where the proposed signal might be installed. “I counted 192 cars coming south on Euclid and turning east on Valley View – seven cars going west on Valley View and north on Euclid. That was a span from 7:15 to 8:15. Then I went home and it was nice and tranquil. It’s just during the traffic hours. We have people speeding — it’s dangerous – I don’t think a signal will help. He said he thought it would act like a funnel into the neighborhood. “We did try to get some roundabouts or humps placed but got turned down. Officers can’t be there all the time so we have people going 50 miles-an-hour. It could use some more studying to see how much the traffic is… (his mic was cut off in mid sentence).

•A resident on Valley View said he wanted to take a different perspective. The experts did the work – they took the data. The speakers who are opposed to this because they think it might increase traffic just proves why we need it – there is already a large excess of cars going through there. It really comes down to one thing only – safety. And I don’t think that should be easily dismissed over fear that there will be more traffic. The kids at Golden Hills would have a safer exit leaving if there was a light. It’s going to be safer for everybody. You can’t see the oncoming traffic when turning left from either side onto Euclid. It’s going to control the speed on the north and southbound lanes. There are more cars on the road today than thirty years ago. That means more people may be injured unless something is done at that intersection. There will always be cars going from Euclid to Harbor on that street – stoplight or no stoplight. I encourage the council to look at the data your own professionals have put forth.

•Munish Bharadwaja who does not live in the neighborhood said he has been in and out of the neighborhood because his daughter’s preschool was there. He said he didn’t think a traffic signal would help. “The issue is speed. The speed limit is 35 mph and cars are traveling at a lot higher than that. Can’t always identify the reason for an accident – can’t just blame the lack of a signal. If you have a street where people are speeding you are obviously going to have issues.

•Melinda Walker who lives on Valley View Drive asked council to reject the proposal for installing the traffic signal at Euclid and Valley View or send the issue back to TCC for more study. She said she had a meeting of Valley View neighbors and the majority of residents do not want a traffic light installed. A traffic light will do no good and just push more traffic onto Valley View Dr.

•Maureen Milton why does it take a disaster to get a light installed if they can’t make a turn safely? It’s an accident waiting to happen.

•Mayor Protem Charles, mentioned that stoplights do reduce speed – so if one concern is the speed that should be a good thing. “I am very concerned about reducing traffic accidents in the city. I believe it was early 2023 when we approved a traffic light being installed up on Harbor and it didn’t have a street going straight through – so a little different – but it did have the same situation of people not being able to turn left out of their neighborhood. I remember one gentleman in favor of the stoplight lived in the house he had inherited from his mother after she was killed in a traffic accident trying to make a left turn out of the neighborhood. Everyday he had to go through that intersection where his mother had died. I will never forget his story. And finding that we are already in a situation where we find that cars are going through walls I think it is incumbent upon us to do whatever we can to prevent that from happening. Reading the report I see the traffic engineer says they have tried several measures that haven’t been successful. I think we need to install that light and then look more deeply at the issues on Fern and Valley View that we have heard tonight. I think the first step has to be installing the signal lights to make sure that we don’t have the risk of having a car go through someone wall endangering a child.”

•Councilmember Zahra, said “It is always difficult when we have issues like this and you really want to care about everybody. I watched this from the beginning when the Valdez family reached out to the council. I appreciate staff for conducting this study over the past two years. The engineers found a signal is warranted, there is speeding, there have been accidents. I will be supporting this because the data is showing it is warranted at this time.”

•Councilmember Valencia, asked the Director Bise if he could get a sensor light that would sense people coming out of the cul-de-sac.  Not a four-way type.

Director Bise answered that that would essentially be a full active traffic signal.

The Traffic Consultant explained, “Unfortunately according to law we can’t just signalize one side of an intersection – it  has to be all four sides – the entire intersection.”

•Mayor Jung, “Let me give you some data – since everyone is so interested in numbers today. We had a plane crash into a warehouse where 400 people were working. We had a plane crash two months before that on the street neighboring it – and I don’t hear any member of the public asking us to close the airport. Accidents happen – these are just facts. And I don’t know that there’s any statistical evidence out there that a traffic signal will stop accidents. I don’t think this is ready for prime time if you’re asking me to vote on this – I vote no.  I think this needs way more public input. Staff didn’t do any outreach in the first go-around with TCC. I have had many neighbors call and email saying they got notice for this meeting only – not for the TCC meeting.  So if we are going to force a vote today my vote is no – otherwise I support this going back [to TCC].”

•Mayor Protem Charles, “one quick note – I would be absolutely interested in bringing airport safety to the council if you want to adgendize that I would be more than happy to have a full discussion about that. I am very concerned about those accidents as well.”

•Councilmember Dunlap, “I have had the opportunity to speak with Ms. Klatsker and some of her neighbors about their concerns and some of these incidents that have been documented on Euclid over the past few years. And I have also heard the concerns from some of the neighbors who have called me and I think these are very real concerns. One thing we are failing to take into account is people’s traffic patterns, driving patterns could literally change overnight with technology and Google maps and the things that are routing people through in a new direction because of congestion. I think these are very real things we need to take into account.  I think there is an additional review or study that needs to take place – and I think that’s looking at the traffic between Euclid and Harbor and the potential ways to mitigate the traffic there. It is obvious that there will be additional impact by virtue of having an additional signal there.  I am in favor of sending it to TCC for further study on the impact on both sides. And it’s funny you know we dealt with a similar issue further north on Euclid several years back with respect to the Pines project (Rosecrans) – where as part of the public notice process the developer had noticed the homes mostly north and  east of the location but the bigger impact for traffic and environmental concerns was to the folks to the south and west. So the most important thing is to make sure the people -who are most impacted and have concerns- be noticed and have the right to engage in this process. So that is what I would support.

 •Mayor Jung, “I will move to take this back to committee.  I think we need to have further outreach and more community members involved – particularly on the other side of Euclid.”

•Councilmember Valencia, seconded the motion and added “Maybe we can also talk with police about setting up some…more eyes on the road”

•Councilmember Dunlap broke in with another thought he said “Actually, I don’t know I subscribe to the idea that there isn’t a way to permanently signal Hiltscher Trail right now…to reconfigure and add additional traffic calming measures. I don’t know that I believe that or subscribe to that ideology – I think that’s a concern we should look at and frankly its one I don’t know why we wouldn’t have tried sooner in this process.”

 •Mayor Jung, “Happy to add that to the motion, sir.”

•Councilmember Zahra, “For clarification purposes – are we sending this to the Transportation Committee for review of Hiltscher Trail signaling and what else?

 •Mayor Jung, “Well more public outreach needs to be done. That’s clear. All the calls I’ve received and all the emails I’ve received. You know there are 11 homes in that cul-de-sac side of Euclid – there are hundreds on the other side. So I’ve heard from most of those residents – I MEAN AGAIN you’re welcome to make a substitute motion and we will vote on it otherwise I’m not going to litigate something I already gave you my opinion on. If we are going to litigate this tonight then I’m going to vote no. otherwise we can take this back down to TCC where…

 •Councilmember Zahra, broke in, “If I may just clarify what I am asking. If it’s purely for public notification then that could be done at the staffing level. It would not have to go back to TCC we can just bring it back here after notification happens – that’s what I’m asking – and then Hiltscher could be done as a separate study, right? Then we can give people some closure on this issue. We don’t have to send it back to…

•Mayor Jung, broke in, “WHICH PEOPLE do you think need closure? Cause there’s people who have advocated that they do not want the signal or at the very least to put this back down to committee. So we are listening to the public. So I’m curious as to which group you’re actually referring to.”

 •Councilmember Zahra, “Both sides, what I’m asking is that we can’t drag things on. We need to come to some conclusion. We don’t want to go through the motions just for the sake of going through the motions. If we’re deciding the motion is to go back to TCC to send out notifications – that’s not a commission job – that’s what I’m saying. That’s a procedural thing on staffing level.”

•Mayor Jung, “WELL Staff can send out the notifications and then at the committee you can see a full breathe of that community and then we will see what that community has to offer.”

 •Councilmember Zahra, “So the motion would be to have it reconsidered by TCC?”

•Mayor Jung, “I THINK our staff is smart enough to figure this out – I don’t know why you need to silver spoon them all of this right now. Just by saying it goes back to committee with better outreach so we can have more input from the community that’s impacted – not just the 11 homes that are on the cul-de-sac.”

•Councilmember Dunlap “I think I can add some clarification here. I am not opposed to the signal – if we have all the data and that’s where it directs – I’m supportive. My view tonight is that we don’t have all the data, that we need to look at the additional impact of traffic between Euclid and Harbor – I think that’s the first thing. Then at that point we need to look at what we can do to mitigate the traffic for those affected. And during that process we should be looking at how to activate that signal on Hiltscher Trail. That’s what I support tonight.”

======

Passed 5-0

This item was pulled by Councilmember Valencia.

Valencia said (apparently failing to read the agenda back-up on the item*) that she was told about the award and just wanted to “congratulate all who were involved to get this award to help out the system. I just want to make sure I knew who was involved.”

“Great, no presentation needed,” said Mayor Jung making motion to accept the item which passed unanimously.

*The item according to the back-up agenda is a $1,249,643 professional services contract awarded to Kimley-Horn & Assoc. Inc for the state-funded Active Transportation Program Cycle 6 Nutwood Ave Bike and Pedestrian Mobility Enhancement Project (part of the future pedestrian and bicycle bridge crossing for Nutwood). Duties of the consultant are to coordinate meetings with stakeholders CSUF and CalTrans and the city, maintain project files, review geotechnical reports, obtain permits and approvals, coordinate and perform deep drilling, prepare the geotechnical report, survey, traffic analysis, prepare preliminary design exhibit for public viewing, calculate approximate construction costs and much more (see the 23-page “Proposal, Scope & Fee” document in the agenda package on this item).

======

•Mayor Protem Charles said it’s too late for this and invited the public to subscribe to her newsletter where she puts everything in writing by contacting her at Shana.charles@cityoffullerton.com

•Councilmember Zahra wished everyone a Happy Ramadan hoping it would bring Peace to the World. He invited the public to follow him on his social media.

•Councilmember Dunlap wished East Fullerton Little League a great season and congratulated them on the 275 kids they have playing baseball this season. And Fullerton Hills Softball and the 1100 kids they have, and Golden Hill on the 700 kids they have playing this season.  I had opportunity to participate in opening ceremonies at each of those groups along with Councilmember Valencia and Mayor Protem Charles.  Always a great time to celebrate start of a new season. –  so wish everybody the best.

•Councilmember Valencia thanked the audience for coming and for their comments “I really appreciate you staying for the long haul and the people being here with us – so thank you. And anything you would need in our district  [4] please email me at Jamie.Valencia@cityoffullerton.com and I do answer your emails –  try me again.”