A divided City Council voted 3-2 to reject a proposed traffic light at Euclid Street and Valley View Drive, then directed staff to explore other ways to address safety concerns along Euclid.

The debate unfolded after Mayor Fred Jung opened the meeting by asking to move public comments to the end so the council could take up the traffic signal item first. Councilmember Dr. Shana Charles objected, arguing that residents who had planned to speak during the normal comment period might not be present later. After a brief procedural exchange, the council voted on the mayor’s proposal, and the motion failed, forcing the meeting back to the regular agenda order.

The council also briefly discussed an email error disclosed by Jung before taking up the intersection item. City Attorney Dick Jones told the council that Jung’s accidental “reply all” message to a constituent was inadvertent, did not advocate a vote position, and did not amount to a Brown Act violation.

Traffic Engineer Dave Roseman then presented the staff report, saying the city had spent about 13 months revisiting the intersection after an earlier council discussion sent the matter back to the Traffic and Circulation Commission. Roseman said the commission voted 3-2 to recommend installing a signal and seeking grant funding.

He told the council that the intersection met state traffic signal warrants, largely based on traffic volume on Valley View, though he acknowledged that the crash and pedestrian warrants were not met. He also said the city had already studied alternatives and implemented other measures, including restriping, resurfacing, speed display signs, and enforcement.

Roseman said the signal could be designed to reduce its visual impact and limit speeding, and he said engineers did not find enough additional data to justify further study.

Councilmembers and residents sharply disagreed over whether the signal would improve safety or worsen cut-through traffic in the neighborhood.

During public comment, opponents argued that the light would draw more traffic into residential streets, increase speeding, and shift the burden onto neighbors. Several residents said the intersection did not meet crash or pedestrian thresholds and urged the council to focus instead on broader street safety and infrastructure needs across the city.

Supporters countered that the intersection had documented safety problems, including speeding on Euclid and difficulty making turns at the curved roadway. They said the city should rely on its traffic engineers and act before a serious crash or fatality occurs.

After hearing from residents, the council debated whether to reject the signal outright or send the issue back for more study. Some members argued the city needed a clearer directive on other safety options, while others said the staff had already done enough work and should be allowed to move ahead with alternative measures.

The council ultimately voted to reject the traffic light and direct staff to explore other options for Euclid, including striping and signal timing changes. Jung, Valencia, and Dunlap voted yes. Charles and Zahra voted no. The motion passed 3-2.