Agenda Report
Fullerton Transportation and
Circulation Commission
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 4, 2025
TO: TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION COMMISSION
SUBMITTED BY: PUBLIC WORKS/ TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION PREPARED BY: DAVID ROSEMAN, CONTRACT TRAFFIC ENGINEER
SUBJECT: FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION
TO SIGNALIZE THE INTERSECTION OF EUCLID STREET
AND VALLEY VIEW DRIVE
SUMMARY
At the direction of City Council, the Transportation & Circulation Commission ( T&CC) is requested to review additional traffic study information and hear public testimony in further consideration of a staff recommendation to approve and install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive.
RECOMMENDATION
It is requested that the Commission take the following actions:
1. Reconfirm the Contract Traffic Engineer’s findings that signalization is the most appropriate traffic control measure for the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive.
2. Recommend to the City Council that a new traffic signal at the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive be approved, that engineering design efforts commence, and that staff pursue possible grant funding for its construction.
DISCUSSION
On February 3, 2025, the Transportation & Circulation Commission ( T&CC) concurred with a staff recommendation to recommend to the City Council that a new traffic signal be approved for the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive. A copy of the T&CC Agenda Report is provided in Attachment 1. On March 4, 2025, City Council Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Euclid Street & Valley View Drive August 4, 2025 - Page 2
considered that T&CC recommendation and voted to send the matter back to T&CC for further consideration. A copy of the City Council Agenda Report is provided in Attachment 2. City Council also asked staff to revisit their recommendation to signalize the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive based on concerns expressed by the public and to conduct additional neighborhood traffic studies to determine if signalizing the intersection could result in adverse unmitigable neighborhood impacts.
Prior to returning to T&CC, staff conducted additional neighborhood traffic studies analyzing traffic volumes and speeds along Valley View Drive east of the Euclid Street intersection. Staff also assessed potential and probable neighborhood cut through routes which may be more attractive to motorists by the installation of the recommended traffic signal. Through this analysis, staff found no indication that the installation of the recommended traffic signal would result in significant negative traffic impacts to the neighborhood. Additionally, staff formulated a list of potential traffic signal design features that could be incorporated into the new traffic signal to enhance safety, calm traffic, and reduce the likelihood of undesirable outcomes.
Staff presented their findings and recommendations at a neighborhood meeting on June 16, 2025. The intent of the meeting was to acknowledge residents’ concerns about the recommended traffic signal, provide a summary of the additional traffic data gathered and analysis conducted, answer questions, and discuss traffic signal design alternatives. Staff posted signs on barricades at the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View ( on all four corners) alerting the public about the meeting and also notified 973 property owners/ occupants of the meeting through US mail. The meeting was attended by representatives of 27 properties or about 3% of those notified by US mail.
Those in attendance expressed support, concern, and opposition to the recommended traffic signal, which was revealed during impassioned debate on the various topics discussed.
The Contract Traffic Engineer provided a PowerPoint presentation which summarized the neighborhood traffic data that was gathered and analyzed. A copy of that presentation is provided in Attachment 3. He expressed, in his opinion, that vehicle volumes and traffic speeds along Valley View Drive east of Euclid Street are typical of a residential collector street serving similar sized neighborhoods. Furthermore, based on the travel runs conducted through and around the neighborhood, he concluded that by signalizing the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive it would be unlikely to result in significantly disrupting neighborhood circulation patterns or attract additional traffic to use neighborhood streets over choosing to remain on the surrounding arterial streets.
Those residents in support of a new traffic signal expressed concerns about crash rates, the speed of traffic on Euclid Street, lack of gaps in traffic on Euclid Street during peak periods, poor visibility of conflicting traffic, and difficulty making turns into and out of the neighborhood along Valley View Place.
Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Euclid Street & Valley View Drive August 4, 2025 - Page 3
Those residents in opposition of a new traffic signal expressed concerns that a traffic signal would lead to an increase in vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, and crashes in the neighborhood. It was also expressed that installation of a traffic signal could result in the rerouting of traffic circulation patterns within the neighborhood. It was further expressed that a new traffic signal is an unnecessary and costly project, and that perhaps other options could be pursued.
Alternative options were brought forward by some residents and discussed among the group. Such alternatives included building only half a traffic signal, relocating the traffic signal to Fern Drive, and using the existing signalized crossing at Hiltscher Trail to slow traffic and create gaps in traffic flow. Other low- cost suggestions included turn restrictions and other minor signing and striping changes, many of which had been previously implemented or tried and ultimately abandoned. The alternatives discussed were not new and had previously been considered and discarded by City traffic engineers because they were inconsistent with established design and/ or operational standards or could result in other negative consequences.
In response to concerns expressed about the traffic signal operation, the Contract Traffic Engineer presented several traffic signal design features which could be implemented to calm traffic, enhance safety, and improve operational effectiveness.
Those features included:
Traffic Demand Responsive Detection
Active Detection ( non- locking) with Programmable Delays Rest- in-Green signal timing during the day on Euclid Street Rest- in-Red signal timing at night to control vehicle speeds on both streets.
Implementation of Programmable Visibility signal indications Introduction of new traffic safety lighting at the intersection Based on the results of the additional traffic study efforts and the input provided by residents, it remains the recommendation of the Contract Traffic Engineer that the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive is a good candidate for signalization.
That recommendation is primarily based on the intersection’s physical and traffic flow characteristics satisfying established Statewide traffic signal criteria. Additionally, in his opinion, the City has, over the years, exhausted all reasonable alternatives to improve safety and efficiency at this intersection short of signalization. Furthermore, in his opinion, the installation of a traffic signal would have an insignificant impact on the neighborhood along Valley View Drive to the east of Euclid Street while improving motorist and pedestrian safety, preventing future injury crashes, and reducing the City’s liability. Based on the thorough data collection efforts and analysis, the City Traffic Engineer is in concurrence with the recommendation of the Contract Traffic Engineer.
The installation of a traffic signal is a major engineering design and construction effort that is likely to take two to three years to complete and cost upwards of $ 450, 000.
Therefore, should the Commission and the City Council concur with the recommendation to approve and install a traffic signal, a new Capital Improvement Project would need to be established, and funding allocated to begin the design Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Euclid Street & Valley View Drive August 4, 2025 - Page 4
process. Furthermore, it is suggested that the findings from this study effort be included in the Citywide Safe Streets and Roads for All Action Plan, currently being developed, so that the project to install a traffic signal at the intersection could become eligible to receive State or Federal grant funding.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – T&CC Staff Report ( February 4, 2025)
Attachment 2 – Council Agenda Report ( March 4, 2025)
Attachment 3 – Community Meeting PowerPoint ( June 16, 2025) Attachment 4 – Letters Received
Agenda Report
Fullerton Transportation and
Circulation Commission
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2025
TO: TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION COMMISSION
SUBMITTED BY: PUBLIC WORKS/ TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION PREPARED BY: DAVID ROSEMAN, CONTRACT TRAFFIC ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO
SIGNALIZE THE INTERSECTION OF EUCLID STREET &
VALLEY WIEW DRIVE
SUMMARY
Consideration of a staff recommendation to install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Euclid Street & Valley View Drive.
RECOMMENDATION
It is requested that the Commission take the following actions:
1. Concur with the Contract Traffic Engineer’ s findings that signalization is the most appropriate traffic control measure for the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive.
2. Recommend to the City Council that a new traffic signal at the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive be approved, that engineering design efforts commence, and that staff pursue possible grant funding for its construction.
DISCUSSION
Euclid Street is a 64- foot wide north/ south major arterial street with two through lanes and a left- turn lane in each direction. Approximately 24, 000 vehicles travel on Euclid Street through the intersection with Valley View Drive each weekday. Euclid Street has both compound horizontal and vertical curves as it approaches and departs from Valley View Drive. Euclid Street is posted with a 35mph speed limit south of Valley View Drive and 40mph speed limit north of Valley View Drive. On- street parking is prohibited on Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Euclid Street & Valley View Drive February 3, 2025 - Page 2
the west side of the street. As a result of a 20- foot outside lane, on- street parking is permitted on the east side of Euclid Street from 102- feet south of Valley View Drive and continuing southerly. Early Morning Parking between 2: 00am and 5: 00am is prohibited on both sides of the street.
Valley View Drive is a 36- foot wide east/ west collector street east of Euclid Street with one lane of traffic in each direction. Valley View Drive serves as the primary ingress/ egress access to and from Euclid Street for many residents living east of Euclid Street and it is also the only continuous roadway connection between Harbor Boulevard and Euclid Street between Chapman Avenue to the south and Valencia Mesa Drive to the north. Valley View Drive west of Euclid Street is a short discontinuous local street that is the sole ingress/ egress access for eleven homes. The weekday traffic volume on Valley View Drive approaching the Euclid Street intersection from the east is slightly more than 1, 000 vehicles per day, while approximately 100 vehicles per day approach the intersection from the west. The prima facie speed limit on Valley View Drive is 25mph both east of and west of Euclid Street. On- street parking is permitted on Valley View Drive with the exception of Early Morning Parking between 2: 00am and 5: 00am.
The intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive is shown in Exhibit “ A” Attachment 1). Residents residing near the intersection have expressed traffic safety concerns regarding the intersection over the years. Those safety concerns have centered around crash rates, speed of traffic on Euclid Street, lack of gaps on Euclid Street traffic during peak traffic flows, poor visibility of conflicting traffic, and difficulty making turns into and out of the neighborhoods. As a result of the residents’ concerns, City traffic engineers have conducted studies, implemented striping and signage modifications and improvements, installed speed feedback signs, trimmed landscaping, and monitored operations and crash statistics at the intersection. Despite all these efforts, traffic flow characteristics on Euclid Street remain unaffected and crashes continue to occur.
In late 2023, City traffic engineers conducted a preliminary traffic safety review of the intersection and recommended that a full traffic signal study be conducted. A few months later a virtual community meeting was held between City staff, Fullerton Police, and residents of the area to discuss intersection safety concerns and to brainstorm possible safety enhancement measures. Out of that discussion it was clear that the installation of a traffic signal was the option with the highest potential to reduce crash rates and address the majority of the residents’ safety concerns. City Traffic Engineers then moved forward to conduct a comprehensive traffic signal study, the results of which are outlined here within.
The California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( CA MUTCD) provides traffic engineers with guidance in determining when an intersection should be considered for signalization. The CA MUTCD outlines an engineering study process in which physical conditions, traffic flow, pedestrian activity, and crash performance are evaluated against established criteria or warrants. The warrant study process doesn’ t result in an absolute yes or no answer to the question of signalization, rather engineers are encouraged to Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Euclid Street & Valley View Drive February 3, 2025 - Page 3
look beyond the numbers of the warrants and to exercise engineering judgement when evaluating unique characteristics of an intersection and its traffic operations. Therefore, the warrants are more of a guide for engineers and officials in the decision- making process.
In the fall of last year City traffic engineers gathered data and performed numerous on- site observations at various times of the day and night to complete the CA MUTCD warrant studies for the Euclid Street and Valley View intersection. Ultimately, it was determined that three of the nine warrants related to school zones, roadway networks and railroads were not applicable and therefore discarded. A variety of traffic, physical, and crash data was gathered to complete the remaining six warrant studies. As anticipated, the pedestrian crossing warrant was not satisfied due to low pedestrian activity at the intersection. Therefore, the focus of the study effort shifted to the three warrants related to traffic flow, the one warrant related to coordinated traffic signal systems, and the one warrant related to crash experience as outlined below.
Traffic Flow Studies The CA MUTCD has three traffic volume warrants setting criterion for intersection traffic volumes levels over eight hours, four hours, and the peak hour. Based on the traffic volume data gathered, the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View met all three traffic volume warrants suggesting, that purely based on traffic flow, the intersection is a good candidate for a traffic signal not only during the peak periods, but all day.
Coordinated Signal System Warrant This warrant considers the spacing of traffic signals and if signalizing the intersection would improve the platooning of vehicles and progressive operation of the roadway. Essentially determining if the physical location of the intersection is a good place for a traffic signal based on signal timing parameters.
The intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive is over 2, 000 feet to the next signalized intersection to the south and just shy of 2, 000 feet to the next signalized intersection to the north, thus satisfying the warrant. Therefore, this warrant suggests that the intersection is located in a good place for a traffic signal.
Crash Experience Warrant This warrant is not without controversy in the court of public opinion. To satisfy the warrant, an intersection would have to experience five or more reported crashes within a twelve- month period susceptible to correction by a traffic signal. This limit of five crashes per year is generally not well received by a public that feels that the government should do everything possible to prevent serious crashes.
The crash experience warrant also requires a certain minimum level of traffic flow through the intersection and that all other safety and enforcement alternatives be attempted first without success. In the case of the Euclid Street and Valley View Drive intersection, there is sufficient traffic volume, and the City has taken all reasonable steps to improve safety to date. In review of the available crash data, it was discovered that there was a total of six reported crashes at the intersection in the last two years; However, only two of those six crashes, which both involved injuries, may have been preventable had a traffic signal been in place. Based on the aforementioned findings, the number of crashes per year, does not rise to the level that satisfies the warrant.
Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Euclid Street & Valley View Drive February 3, 2025 - Page 4
However, in reviewing the factors contributing to the reported crashes, it is very likely that the physical intersection layout with its vertical and horizonal curves and random traffic arrival patterns were contributing factors to the crashes. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that any other minor traffic control measures, short of signalization, are unlikely to result in a significant reduction in the crash rate or severity of crashes at the intersection.
It should also be noted that staff evaluated sight distance at the intersection to determine safe stopping distances. Results of that evaluation indicated that technically there is sufficient motorist sight distance of conflicting traffic flows in all directions when factoring in the applicable approach speeds. However, it was also observed that some motorists misjudged approaching higher speed vehicles and made poor choices as to when to make turns on to or off Euclid Street. This misjudging of vehicle speeds could again be related to the horizontal and vertical curves and the random nature of the traffic arrival patterns.
Another physical intersection condition that could be contributing to crashes is intersection lighting. Currently, the intersection has only one dedicated streetlight on the northeast corner, and thus it is relatively dark at night or during poor weather conditions. Should the intersection be signalized, the intersection would be equipped with dedicated safety lights which would significantly improve lighting at night and in inclement weather.
Based on the results of the traffic signal study, it is the recommendation of the Contract Traffic Engineer that the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive is a good candidate for signalization. His recommendation is based on the intersection satisfying four CA MUTCD warrants, personal observations of the intersection and traffic flow, and input received from the public. Furthermore, it is his professional opinion that the installation of a traffic signal would improve pedestrian safety and prevent future injury crashes. The City Traffic Engineer is in concurrence with the recommendation of the Contractor Traffic Engineer.
In November, City traffic engineers and Fullerton Police meet with those residents that were a part of the previous virtual meeting to discuss the data collected, the results of the traffic study, and to seek resident input. The residents in attendance were generally supportive of the study effort, the results presented, and they expressed their desire that the traffic signal be installed as soon as practicable.
The installation of a traffic signal is a major engineering design and construction effort that is likely to take two to three years to complete and cost upwards of $ 450, 000.
Therefore, should the Commission and the City Council concur with the installation of a traffic signal, a new Capital Improvement Project would need to be established and funding allocated to begin the design process. Furthermore, it is suggested that the findings from this study effort be included in the Citywide Safe Streets and Roads for All Action Plan, currently being developed, so that the project to install a traffic signal at the intersection could become eligible to receive State or Federal grant funding.
Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Euclid Street & Valley View Drive February 3, 2025 - Page 5
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Exhibit “ A” Vicinity Map
EUCLID STREET & VALLEY VIEW DRIVE Attachment1- Vicinity Map Agenda Report
Fullerton City Council
MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 2025
TO: CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY
SUBMITTED BY: STEPHEN BISE, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
PREPARED BY: DAVID ROSEMAN, CONTRACT TRAFFIC ENGINEER
MICHAEL PLOTNIK, CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER
SUBJECT: EUCLID STREET AND VALLEY VIEW DRIVE
INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY
City Council consideration of a Transportation and Circulation Commission ( TCC) recommendation to install a traffic signal at the Euclid Street and Valley View Drive intersection.
PROPOSED MOTION
1. Approve new traffic signal installation at the Euclid Street and Valley View Drive intersection.
2. Direct Director of Public Works to seek grant funding opportunities for traffic signal construction at Euclid Street and Valley View Drive.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
Approve the Proposed Motion
Reject TCC recommendation and deny traffic signal installation Refer matter back to TCC to seek alternative safety enhancement measures for the Euclid Street and Valley View Drive intersection to include, but not limited to, enhanced intersection lighting, additional warning signage and revised striping Other options brought by Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Proposed Motion.
CITY MANAGER REMARKS
Euclid Street and Valley View Drive Intersection Signalization Recommendation March 4, 2025 - Page 2
The City Manager recommends approval.
PRIORITY POLICY STATEMENT
This item matches the following Priority Policy Statements:
Public Safety
Infrastructure and City Assets.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Year 2024- 25 Capital Improvement Program has a $ 550, 000 appropriation for Project 46621 – New Traffic Signals & Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons Installation Program in the Capital Projects Fund ( Fund 74) design and construction. However, staff would seek grant funding for this project after initial engineering design if City Council approves the Proposed Motion.
Traffic signal approval, design and construction requires significant engineering effort, time and cost. The City Traffic Engineer estimates the proposed project would take two to three years to complete and cost approximately $ 550, 000. Staff cannot determine full project components and exact project costs until completing the engineering design.
Caltrans design requirements, utility conflicts, required ADA upgrades, traffic signal operations and inflation could impact project components and costs.
Staff anticipates initial engineering design work would use $ 45, 000 of the $ 550, 000 budgeted in Project 46621 for New Traffic Signals & Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons Installation Program. Staff would complete the initial engineering design and then submit engineering design plans and refined estimated project costs to various grant funding agencies. Staff would return to City Council with appropriation requests to accept any grant funding awarded ( or lack thereof).
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Residents in the Euclid Street / Valley View Drive area expressed traffic safety concerns regarding the intersection centered around crash rates, the speed of traffic on Euclid Street, lack of gaps on Euclid Street traffic during peak traffic flows, poor visibility of conflicting traffic and difficulty making turns into and out of the neighborhoods. The City traffic engineering division conducted studies, implemented striping and signage modifications, installed speed feedback signs, trimmed landscaping and monitored operations and crash statistics at the intersection in response to resident concerns.
Euclid Street traffic flow characteristics remain unaffected despite these efforts.
City traffic engineering conducted a preliminary traffic safety review of the intersection and recommended conducting a full traffic signal study in late 2023. Public Works staff, Fullerton Police and area residents held a virtual community meeting a few months later to discuss intersection safety concerns and brainstorm safety enhancement measures.
The discussion found the traffic signal installation option had the highest potential to reduce crash rates and address resident safety concerns. City traffic engineers then conducted a comprehensive traffic signal study. This report outlines study results.
Euclid Street and Valley View Drive Intersection Signalization Recommendation March 4, 2025 - Page 3
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( CA MUTCD) provides guidance for traffic engineers when considering an intersection for signalization. The CA MUTCD outlines an engineering study process to evaluate physical conditions, traffic flow, pedestrian activity and crash performance against established criteria or warrants.
The warrant study process does not provide an absolute yes or no answer to signalization but it enables engineers to look beyond warrants and exercise engineering judgement to evaluate unique characteristics of an intersection and traffic operations. The warrants guide engineers and officials in the decision- making process.
City traffic engineers gathered data in fall 2024 and performed numerous on- site observations at various times of the day and night to complete the CA MUTCD warrant studies for the Euclid Street and Valley View Drive intersection. Staff found three of the nine warrants related to school zones, roadway networks and railroads not applicable and discarded. Staff gathered a variety of traffic, physical and crash data to complete the remaining six warrant studies. The data did not satisfy the pedestrian crossing warrant due to low pedestrian activity at the intersection. The study then focused on the three warrants related to traffic flow, one warrant related to coordinated traffic signal systems and one warrant related to crash experience.
Traffic Flow Studies The CA MUTCD has three traffic volume warrants setting criterion for intersection traffic volumes levels over an eight hour period, a four hour period and the peak hour within those eight and four hour periods, respectively. The traffic volume data gathered at the Euclid Street and Valley View intersection met all three traffic volume criteria, suggesting intersection makes a good candidate for a traffic signal all day, based on traffic flow.
Coordinated Signal System Warrant This warrant considers traffic signals spacing and if signalizing the intersection would improve vehicle platooning and progressive roadway operation and determining if the intersection location makes a good place for a traffic signal based on signal timing parameters. The Euclid Street and Valley View Drive intersection has over 2, 000 feet to the next signalized intersection to the south and just shy of 2, 000 feet to the next signalized intersection to the north and satisfies the warrant, which suggests this intersection has a good location for a traffic signal.
Crash Experience Warrant This warrant is not without controversy in the court of public opinion. An intersection must have five or more reported crashes within a twelve- month period susceptible to correction by a traffic signal to satisfy the warrant. The public does not well receive the five crash es per year limit and feels the government should do everything possible to prevent serious crashes. The crash experience warrant requires a minimum traffic flow level through the intersection and that the agency has first attempted all other safety and enforcement alternatives without success. The Euclid Street and Valley View Drive intersection has sufficient traffic volume and the City has taken all reasonable steps to improve safety to- date. Available crash data indicates six reported crashes at the intersection in the last two years with two of those six crashes, which both involved injuries, potentially preventable with a traffic signal at that location.
The findings indicate the number of crashes per year does not satisfy the warrant.
However, staff analysis finds the physical intersection layout with vertical and horizonal curves and random traffic arrival patterns very likely contributes to the crashes. Staff Euclid Street and Valley View Drive Intersection Signalization Recommendation March 4, 2025 - Page 4
finds it reasonable to assume that any other minor traffic control measures, short of signalization, would not result in significant reduction in the crash rate or severity of crashes at the intersection.
Staff evaluated intersection sight distance to determine safe stopping distances and found the intersection technically has sufficient motorist sight distance of conflicting traffic flows in all directions when factoring in the applicable approach speeds. However, staff also observed that some motorists misjudged approaching higher speed vehicles and made poor choices as to when to make turns on to or off Euclid Street. The horizontal and vertical curves and the random nature of the traffic arrival patterns could relate to this misjudgment.
The absence of adequate intersection lighting could also contribute to crashes. The intersection has one dedicated streetlight on the northeast corner making it relatively dark at night and during poor weather conditions. Intersection signalization would include dedicated safety lights to significantly improve lighting at night and during inclement weather.
The contract traffic engineer recommends signalizing the Euclid Street and Valley View Drive intersection based on the traffic signal study results, the intersection satisfying four CA MUTCD warrants, personal observations of the intersection and traffic flow and public input. The traffic engineer opined that traffic signal installation would improve pedestrian safety and prevent future injury crashes.
City traffic engineers and Fullerton Police met with residents in November 2024 to discuss the data collected, the traffic study results and to seek additional resident input. The residents supported the study effort, the results presented and desired a traffic signal installed as soon as practicable.
TCC voted 3 - 1 in favor of design and implementation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive on February 3, 2025. Staff presents that recommendation for City Council consideration.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 - TCC Staff Report
cc: City Manager Eric J. Levitt
EUCLID STREET & VALLEY VIEW DRIVE
Attachment 2- Vicinity Map
Agenda Report
Fullerton Transportation and
Circulation Commission
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2025
TO: TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION COMMISSION
SUBMITTED BY: PUBLIC WORKS/ TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION PREPARED BY: DAVID ROSEMAN, CONTRACT TRAFFIC ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO
SIGNALIZE THE INTERSECTION OF EUCLID STREET &
VALLEY WIEW DRIVE
SUMMARY
Consideration of a staff recommendation to install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Euclid Street & Valley View Drive.
RECOMMENDATION
It is requested that the Commission take the following actions:
1. Concur with the Contract Traffic Engineer’ s findings that signalization is the most appropriate traffic control measure for the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive.
2. Recommend to the City Council that a new traffic signal at the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive be approved, that engineering design efforts commence, and that staff pursue possible grant funding for its construction.
DISCUSSION
Euclid Street is a 64- foot wide north/ south major arterial street with two through lanes and a left- turn lane in each direction. Approximately 24, 000 vehicles travel on Euclid Street through the intersection with Valley View Drive each weekday. Euclid Street has both compound horizontal and vertical curves as it approaches and departs from Valley View Drive. Euclid Street is posted with a 35mph speed limit south of Valley View Drive and 40mph speed limit north of Valley View Drive. On- street parking is prohibited on the Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Euclid Street & Valley View Drive February 3, 2025 - Page 2
west side of the street. As a result of a 20- foot outside lane, on- street parking is permitted on the east side of Euclid Street from 102- feet south of Valley View Drive southerly. Early Morning Parking between 2: 00am and 5: 00am is prohibited on both sides of the street.
Valley View Drive is a 36- foot wide east/ west collector street east of Euclid Street with one lane of traffic in each direction. Valley View Drive serves as the primary ingress/ egress access to and from Euclid Street for many residents living east of Euclid Street and it is also the only continuous roadway connection between Harbor Boulevard and Euclid Street between Chapman Avenue to the south and Valencia Mesa Drive to the north. Valley View Drive west of Euclid Street is a short discontinuous local street that is the sole ingress/ egress access for eleven homes. The weekday traffic volume on Valley View Drive approaching the Euclid Street intersection from the east is slightly more than 1, 000 vehicles per day, while approximately 100 vehicles per day approach the intersection from the west. The prima facie speed limit on Valley View Drive is 25 miles per hour both east of and west of Euclid Street. On- street parking is permitted on Valley View Drive with the exception of Early Morning Parking between 2: 00am and 5: 00am.
The intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive is shown in Exhibit “ A” Attachment 1). Residents residing near the intersection have expressed traffic safety concerns regarding the intersection for years. Those safety concerns have centered around crash rates, the speed of traffic on Euclid Street, lack of gaps in Euclid Street traffic during peak traffic flows, poor visibility of conflicting traffic, and difficulty making turns into and out of the neighborhoods. As a result of the residents’ concerns, City traffic engineers have conducted studies, implemented striping and signage modifications and improvements, installed speed feedback signs, trimmed landscaping, and monitored operations and crash statistics at the intersection. Despite all these efforts traffic flow characteristics on Euclid Street remain unaffected and crashes continue to occur.
In late 2023, City Traffic Engineers conducted a preliminary traffic safety review of the intersection and recommended that a full traffic signal study be conducted. A few months later a virtual community meeting was held between City staff, Fullerton Police, and residents of the area to discuss intersection safety concerns and to brainstorm possible safety enhancement measures. Out of that discussion it was clear that the installation of a traffic signal was the option with the highest potential to reduce crash rates and address the majority of the residents’ safety concerns. City traffic engineers then moved forward to conduct a comprehensive traffic signal study, the results of which are outlined here within.
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( CA MUTCD) provides traffic engineers with guidance in determining when an intersection should be considered for signalization. The CA MUTCD outlines an engineering study process in which physical conditions, traffic flow, pedestrian activity, and crash performance are evaluated against established criteria or warrants. The warrant study process doesn’ t result in an absolute Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Euclid Street & Valley View Drive February 3, 2025 - Page 3
yes or no answer to the question of signalization, rather engineers are encouraged to look beyond the numbers of the warrants and to exercise engineering judgement when evaluating unique characteristics of an intersection and its traffic operations. Therefore, the warrants are more of a guide for engineers and officials in the decision- making process.
In the fall of last year City traffic engineers gathered data and performed numerous on- site observations at various times of the day and night to complete the CA MUTCD warrant studies for the Euclid Street and Valley View intersection. Ultimately, it was determined that three of the nine warrants related to school zones, roadway networks and railroads were not applicable and discarded. A variety of traffic, physical, and crash data was gathered to complete the remaining six warrant studies. As anticipated, the pedestrian crossing warrant was not satisfied due to low pedestrian activity at the intersection. Therefore, the focus of the study effort shifted to the three warrants related to traffic flow, the one warrant related to coordinated traffic signal systems, and the one warrant related to crash experience as outlined below.
Traffic Flow Studies The CA MUTCD has three traffic volume warrants setting criterion for intersection traffic volumes levels over eight hours, four hours, and the peak hour. Based on the traffic volume data gathered, the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View met all three traffic volume warrants suggesting that purely based on traffic flow the intersection is a good candidate for a traffic signal not only during the peak periods, but all day.
Coordinated Signal System Warrant This warrant considers the spacing of traffic signals and if signalizing the intersection would improve the platooning of vehicles and progressive operation of the roadway. Essentially determining if the physical location of the intersection is a good place for a traffic signal based on signal timing parameters.
The intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive is over 2, 000 feet to the next signalized intersection to the south and just shy of 2, 000 feet to the next signalized intersection to the north, thus satisfying the warrant. Therefore, this warrant suggests that the intersection is located in a good place for a traffic signal.
Crash Experience Warrant This warrant isn’ t without controversy in the court of public opinion. To satisfy the warrant, an intersection would have to experience five or more reported crashes within a twelve- month period susceptible to correction by a traffic signal. This limit of five crashes per year is generally not well received by a public that feels that the government should do everything possible to prevent serious crashes.
The crash experience warrant also requires a certain minimum level of traffic flow through the intersection and that all other safety and enforcement alternatives be attempted first without success. In the case of the Euclid Street and Valley View Drive intersection, there is sufficient traffic volume, and the City has taken all reasonable steps to improve safety to date. In review of the available crash data, it was discovered that there was a total of six reported crashes at the intersection in the last two years; However, only two of those six crashes, which both involved injuries, may have been preventable had a traffic signal been in place. Based on the aforementioned findings the Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Euclid Street & Valley View Drive February 3, 2025 - Page 4
number of crashes per year, does not rise to the level that satisfies the warrant.
However, in reviewing the factors contributing to the reported crashes, it is very likely that the physical intersection layout with its vertical and horizonal curves and random traffic arrival patterns were contributing factors to the crashes. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that any other minor traffic control measures, short of signalization, are unlikely to result in a significant reduction in the crash rate or severity of crashes at the intersection.
It should also be noted that staff evaluated sight distance at the intersection to determine safe stopping distances. Results of that evaluation indicated that technically there is sufficient motorist sight distance of conflicting traffic flows in all directions when factoring in the applicable approach speeds. However, it was also observed that some motorists misjudged approaching higher speed vehicles and made poor choices as to when to make turns on to or off Euclid Street. This misjudging of vehicle speeds could again be related to the horizontal and vertical curves and the random nature of the traffic arrival patterns.
Another physical intersection condition that could be contributing to crashes is intersection lighting. Currently, the intersection has only one dedicated streetlight on the northeast corner, and thus it is relatively dark at night or poor weather conditions.
Should the intersection be signalized the intersection would be equipped with dedicated safety lights significantly improving lighting at night and in inclement weather.
Based on the results of the traffic signal study, it is the recommendation of the Contract Traffic Engineer that the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive is a good candidate for signalization. His recommendation is based on the intersection satisfying four CA MUTCD warrants, personal observations of the intersection and traffic flow, and the input received from the public. Furthermore, it is his professional opinion that the installation of a traffic signal would improve pedestrian safety and prevent future injury crashes.
In November, City traffic engineers and Fullerton Police meet with those residents that were a part of the previous virtual meeting to discuss the data collected, the results of the traffic study, and to seek resident input. The residents in attendance were generally supportive of the study effort, the results presented, and they expressed their desire that the traffic signal be installed as soon as practicable.
The installation of a traffic signal is a major engineering design and construction effort that is likely to take two to three years to complete and cost upwards of $ 450, 000.
Therefore, should the Commission and the City Council concur with the installation of a traffic signal, a new Capital Improvement Project would need to be established and funding allocated to begin the design process. Furthermore, it is suggested that the findings from this study effort be included in the Citywide Safe Streets and Roads for All Plan currently being developed so that the project to install a traffic signal at the intersection could become eligible to receive State or Federal grant funding.
Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Euclid Street & Valley View Drive February 3, 2025 - Page 5
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Exhibit “ A” Vicinity Map
Euclid Street & Valley View Drive
Community Meeting
June 16, 2025
Stephen Bise Directorof Public Works
Michael Plotnik City TrafficEngineer
Dave Roseman ConsultantTrafficEngineer
Jeffrey Chinchilla Civil Engineer (Traffic)
David Langstaff ConsultantTransportationAnalyst
Julia Lewis AssistantEngineer (Traffic)
STAFF
Timeline
In 2023, City traffic engineers conducted a preliminary traffic safety review of the intersection and recommendedthat a comprehensive traffic signal study be conducted. Later that year, a virtualcommunitymeetingwas initiatedby the FullertonPolice with TrafficEngineeringstaff and residentsof the immediatearea present.
In early 2024, staff conducted a comprehensive traffic signal study followed by a neighborhoodmeetingin Novemberto discussthe data collected. The meetingwas attended by City trafficengineers, FullertonPoliceDepartment, and residentsof the immediatearea. At the conclusionof the meeting, it was discussedthat the intersectionwas a good candidatefor signalization.
On February3, 2025, the Transportation & CirculationCommission (T&CC) consideredand approveda staff recommendationto install a new trafficsignal at Euclid Street & ValleyView Drive.
On March4, 2025, City Council, after hearingpublic comment, movedto returnthe item to the T&CC for furtherreview.
3 Timeline (cont.)
On May 14, 2025, staff postedthe intersectionnoticingthe neighborhoodof a community meeting on June 16, 2025, to acquire additional information from residents prior to returning to the T&CC.
On May 28, 2025, staff sent out mailersto 973 residentsnoticingresidentsof said meeting.
On June 16, 2025, the City TrafficEngineer, City staff, and the City’s TrafficEngineering consultants, will hear neighborhoodconcerns, support, and/or recommendations, regardingthe installationof a new trafficsignal at Euclid Street & ValleyView Drive.
On August4, 2025, the City TrafficEngineerwill providefindingsfrom the earlierneighborhood meeting to the T&CC with a potential recommendation of continued support for a new traffic signal at the intersection of Euclid Street and Valley View Drive.
On Tuesday, September2, 2025, the City TrafficEngineerintendsto presentCouncilwith a T&CC recommendationaccompaniedby all publiccommentheardto date. 4 Community
Mailing
Area
973 Residents
6 7
85th = < 30m ph
A.D.T. = 935 ve h.
AM Peak = 119
PM Peak = 112
4-
85th = < 30m ph
A.D.T. = 1,132 veh.
AM Peak = 162
PM Peak = 145
1 85th = < 2 8m ph
A.D.T. = 1,079 veh.
AM Peak = 97
PM Peak = 98
85th = < 2 7m ph
A.D.T. = 1,198 veh.
AM Peak=185
PM Peak = 142
1 1
r
c
y rraa
Iva i ° / \ -
STOP
Route Apprax.
Miles
Google
Avg. Time
Actual Time
Min:Sec)
Time
Difference
Red 1.5 miles 3 min. 4:42 min AM Peak
3:51 min PM Peak 1minitlsec
Blue 1.5 miles 4 min.
6:18 min AM Peak
5:23 min PM Peak
1minf36sec
1 min/32sec
Green 1.5 mils:: 4 min.
5:21 min AM Peak
5:29 min PM Peak
A5sec
1minf36sec
Purple 1.6 miles 6 min 6:53 min AM Peak
5:46 min PM Peak
2minfllsec
1min/55sec
1 o r `
y.
W, l STOP a,
tr.
R -- tF. , L
c
m
T
Fy, , .-. Flip;
1'4'1' I"' ' C I4
n T ' 8' \ 7
s
rP `- s.
r'i r a'"* ti
a
lid ' 4
r$
Route Approx..
Miles
Google
Avg. Time
Actual Time
Min:Sec)
Time
Difference
Red 1.5 miles 5 min. 3:28 min AM Peak
3:26 min PM Peak minlUsec
Blue 1.5 miles 5 min.
3:36 min AM Peak
3:24 min PM Peak
8sec
2sec
Green 1.5 miles 5 min.
4:03 min AM Peak
4:05 min PM Peak
35sec
39sec
Purple 1.6 miles 6 min. 6:53 min AM Peak
5:46 min PM Peak
3min125sec
2min120sec
1 Route Approx. Goggle Actual Time Time
Miles Avg. Time ( Min:Sec) Difference
4:11
r-
in AM Peak
DminlDsecGreen 1.7 miles 6 min.
3:11 - lin PM Peak
1.7 ^, il _ a 6 in 5:01 min AM Peak + 50see
Green 4:01 min PM Peak + 50sec
Purple 1.5 miles 5 min. 4:29 min AM Peak + 10sec
1:08 min PM Peak + 3minf57sec
Includes an average delay of 50 - seconds with traffic signal. 1 `
h or
o (
A".„
F
VALLEY VIEW ALTERNATE ROUTES - Southbound
1 1
i + STOP VIEW-
r -
f
STOP ;#
iLt
Approx.
Miles
1.7 miles
1.5 miles
Goggle
Avg. Time
Actual Time
Min:Sec]
4:14 min Alvi Peak
3:50 min PM Peak
4:35 min AM Peak
4:45 min PM Peak
Time
Difference
0min10sec
18sec
3minl57s ec
LJ. •_, ; a . r,. .- `.,
2 a ru 14] itAt..
1 a - " 4 1:
ti
el
VALLEY VIEW ALTERNATE ROUTES - Northbound Rev.3
TrafficSignalFeatures
TrafficDemandResponsiveDetection
ActiveDetection (non-locking) withprogrammabledelay
RestinGreensignaltimingduringthedayonEuclidStreet
RestinRedsignaltimingall4-waydirectionsatnightto
controlvehiclespeedsonEuclidStreet
ProgrammableVisibilitytrafficsignalindications
TrafficSafetyStreetLightingwithinIntersection
13 WESTBOUND
DRIVERSEYE
FROM
250-FEET
AWAY
Programmable traffic signal indications feature a focused and directional beam for preciselane control or to control driver awareness & timely assessment.
16 Questions & Answers
Attachment 4
1 Julia Lewis
From: Carrie Hosozawa < carriehosozawa@gmail. com>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 5: 15 PM
To: Michael Plotnik; Lucinda Williams
Subject:[ EXTERNAL MAIL] Follow- Up on Valley View Traffic Light Proposal Dear Chair and Commission Members,
I’m writing once again to follow up on my previous letter regarding the proposed traffic signal on Valley View between Woods and Euclid. My concerns about this proposal remain strong— particularly the process by which it has advanced, the rationale behind it, and the long- term implications for our neighborhood’ s safety and character.
Frankly, I’m struggling to understand how we’ve reached this point. Why are we meeting again with the Transportation and Circulation Committee to discuss a $ 650, 000 traffic light that appears to benefit only 11 households? This feels like a serious misuse of staff time and precious city resources.
Let’s ask the fundamental question: How did a traffic signal serving a cul- de- sac of just 11 homes become a higher priority than long standing safety concerns at far more hazardous intersections— like Fern Drive and Euclid— where there have tragically been pedestrian fatalities? This deserves serious scrutiny before any further action is taken.
I understand that residents on the cul- de- sac would like a protected left turn onto Valley View. But the risks of that maneuver have always existed. The intersection hasn’ t suddenly become dangerous— it has always lacked a protected turn. Those who purchased homes there presumably did so understanding those limitations.
Designing major infrastructure around the preferences of a handful of drivers, while ignoring broader and more urgent safety concerns, seems misguided.
Meanwhile, our neighborhood has grown and changed. Young families with school- aged children now walk daily— often along streets that lack sidewalks. Installing a new light at the proposed location could funnel more vehicle traffic through residential streets, increasing the danger for our most vulnerable road users.
The real and persistent issue of speeding on Valley View also remains unaddressed. Between Woods and Euclid, drivers frequently exceed the posted 25 mph limit. A traffic light won’ t solve that problem. Targeted enforcement and well- designed traffic- calming measures would.
And let’s be honest— placing a new light just 300 feet from an existing signal at the trail defies both logic and Some people who received this message don' t often get email from carriehosozawa@gmail. com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: BE CAREFUL WITH THIS MESSAGE
This email came from outside City of Fullerton. Do not open attachments, click on links, or respond unless you expected this 2 basic traffic engineering standards. It creates redundancy without delivering meaningful safety improvements.
Finally, I want to stress a serious issue with community outreach. While my address was listed as “noticed,” neither I nor my immediate neighbors were informed of the virtual meeting or the November meeting cited in the staff report. That lack of notification undermines transparency and fairness in the process and further supports the need to pause and re- engage the community more thoughtfully.
I urge you to take a step back, reassess this proposal, and ensure that decisions of this magnitude are grounded in equity, logic, and broad community input. Let’s work toward a solution that protects everyone— drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike.
Thank you for your time and continued attention to this important issue.
Sincerely,
Carrie Hosozawa
1 Julia Lewis
From: James Garner < jgarner@pobox. com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 8: 35 PM
To: Michael Plotnik
Subject:[ EXTERNAL MAIL] Traffic Signal at Euclid and Valley View Dear Mr. Plotnik,
I will be away and unable to attend the August 4 meeting on the above traffic light but would like to offer the following comment:
It is obvious that making a left- turn from West- bound Valley View onto South- bound Euclid is extremely dangerous. However this could be effectively remedied simply by posting a " No Left Turn" sign on Valley View. A left turn onto Euclid can be made safely simply by dog- legging over one street to Fern Drive and turning into the median lane on Euclid.
The addition of yet another traffic light would significantly reduce the efficiency of Euclid as a major traffic artery for the greater community.
Consequently, I urge your department not to move forward with installing a traffic signal.
Sincerely,
James Garner
512 W Valley View Dr.
Fullerton, CA 92835
You don' t often get email from jgarner@pobox. com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: BE CAREFUL WITH THIS MESSAGE
This email came from outside City of Fullerton. Do not open attachments, click on links, or respond unless you expected this 1 Julia Lewis
From: Steve Cooper < scooper@cooperconstructiongroup. com> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 4: 38 PM
To: PW Permits; nicolas. dunlap@cityoffullerton. com; Fred Jung; Shana Charles; Jamie Valencia; Ahmad Zahra
Cc: Tracy M. Cooper (); Steve Cooper ( stevecooper5@sbcglobal. net) Subject:[ EXTERNAL MAIL] RE: Euclid & Valley View Dr. - Signalization Meeting - 08. 04. 2025 Peter,
As discussed, please forward this email to Michael Plotnik as the email address provided was rejected.
Thank you,
Steve Cooper
949) 337- 9677
From: Steve Cooper < scooper@cooperconstructiongroup. com> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 4: 19 PM
To: michael. plotnik@cityoffulleton. com; nicolas. dunlap@cityoffullerton. com; Fred. jung@cityoffullerton. com; shana. charles@cityoffullerton. com; Jamie. valencia@cityoffullerton. com; ahmad. zahra@cityoffullerton. com Cc: Steve Cooper < scooper@cooperconstructiongroup. com>; Tracy M. Cooper () < tcooper. tcooper@outlook. com> Subject: Euclid & Valley View Dr. - Signalization Meeting - 08. 04. 2025 Hi Michael,
My wife and I live at 542 W. Valley View Dr. I le< a couple of voice messages for you and would like to discuss the proposed signaliza= on as noted above.
We feel strongly that the cost of installing a signal system at that this intersec= on is NOT prudent and that u= lizing these types of funds would be far beAer served resurfacing asphalt roads in our city. Including W. Valley View. Please provided an es= mated cost for the proposed signaliza= on at Euclid & Valley View. I’m sure you are aware W Valley View is u= lized daily as a by- pass for heavy vehicle trac fromEuclid to HarborBlvd. I personallywould like to see “speed humps” installed on W ValleyView to reducevehicle speed and or detourtrac. We appreciate the City of Fullerton’s con= nuedgood work in making ourcity safe. The city’ s engineeringandpublic works departments are to be applaudedfor their ongoingeorts. Thank you, Steven J Cooper
Tracy MCooper
542 W. Valley
View Dr. Some people who
receivedthis messagedon' t often get emailfrom [email protected]. Learn why this is importantCAUTION: BECAREFUL WITH THISMESSAGE This email came
from outside City of Fullerton. Do not open attachments, click on links, or respondunless youexpected this 2 Fullerton, CA. 92835
949) 337- 9677
scooper@cooperconstructiongroup. com
1 Julia Lewis
From: Winnie Hsieh < suprwhs@gmail. com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 8: 58 AM
To: Council Members
Cc: Michael Plotnik
Subject:[ EXTERNAL MAIL] Subject: Strong Opposition to Proposed Traffic Signal at Euclid & Valley View – Safer Alternatives Needed
Dear City Council Members,
I’m a resident of the Golden Hill community writing to express strong opposition to the proposed traffic signal at Euclid Street and Valley View Drive.
While I understand the desire to improve traffic flow and safety, this particular solution would do more harm than good to our neighborhood.
Why This Signal is a Serious Concern:
It would dramatically increase cut- through traffic into a quiet residential area not designed to handle heavy flow.
Our streets are home to children, dog walkers, cyclists, and families — increased traffic would elevate risks for accidents and injuries.
This project would erode the peace and safety that residents of Golden Hill deeply value.
We urge the Council to reconsider this proposal and adopt safer, more community- conscious alternatives.
Suggested Alternatives to Preserve Safety Without Inviting Risk:
1. Discourage Left Turns at Euclid & Valley View
CAUTION: BE CAREFUL WITH THIS MESSAGE
This email came from outside City of Fullerton. Do not open attachments, click on links, or respond unless you expected this 2 The intersection sits on a slope in both directions, limiting visibility for drivers. Instead of installing a traffic signal, remove the left- turn lanes and arrows, replace them with a solid yellow line, and post “ No Left Turn” signage. A traffic island could further deter these turns and improve safety.
2. Alleviate Congestion at Malvern & Euclid
Much of the left- turn activity onto Valley View is due to congestion at nearby Malvern. Retiming or optimizing the signal at Malvern & Euclid could reduce pressure on Valley View altogether.
3. Redirect Traffic to Safer Intersections
Valley View’ s uphill grade and visibility issues make it a poor candidate for left- turn access. Consider removing the left- turn arrow entirely, as nearby intersections like Fern Drive and Rodeo Drive function safely without left- turn arrows.
This community is not anti- progress — we simply want smart, safety- first decisions that reflect the real- life impact on families and pedestrians.
Thank you for your time and for representing the interests of all Fullerton residents. I hope the Council will take these points seriously and seek alternative solutions that protect rather than endanger our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Weilie Hsieh
Valley View Drive, Golden Hill
714 928 8321
Picture 1. Uphill on Euclid southbound
Picture 2. Valley View Drive Cut through tariff
The linked
image can not
be d isplayed.
The file may
have been
mov ed,
ren amed, or
deleted.
Verify that
the link
points to the
correct file
and location.
The linked
image can not
be d isplayed.
The file may
have been
mov ed,
ren amed, or
deleted.
Verify that
the link
points to the
correct file
and location.
3 4