Commentary: Traffic signal installation goes against prior Merced council decision
A traffic signal is being constructed on Santa Fe Drive, 500 feet west of Highway 59, contrary to and with disregard to City Council direction when it approved the shopping center on the northeast corner of Santa Fe Dr. and Highway 59.
When I was on the council, we reviewed the project and were concerned that having a second traffic signal so near the one at Olive Avenue and Highway 59 would congest traffic flow going to and from the direction of Atwater. This congestion improved access to the shopping center at the cost of the general public traffic flow. Council delayed approval for two weeks so the developer could address council concerns.
Council approved the shopping center without a second traffic signal and instead required a median island be built on Santa Fe with a left-turn lane serving the shopping center. Customers going toward Merced could stack in the turn lane and turn into the shopping center when traffic safely allowed to do so. Other driveways for right turn in and right turn out only on Santa Fe and Highway 59 completed the traffic circulation plan. Council placed a condition of approval that if traffic movements were determined to be not safe (in the future), then a traffic signal could be required of the developer.
The second traffic signal is constructed now (without knowing if traffic safety warrants it) and the median island with left-turn lane on Santa Fe has been deleted from the project. The city staff in negotiations with the developer have agreed to this. This reverses the direction of the council deliberations and approval. The reason for this seems to be the same as it was when first presented to council — the developer wants to ease access to his shopping center for customers even if it burdens the general public with traffic congestion, and inefficiency.
We city council members at the time of approval did our job of representing the well-being of residents through conditioning approval of the shopping center. A few years later, with different city staff and council members, the conditions of approval are disregarded. We live in an era of distrust of government over the pandemic, elections, and accountability . These issues of distrust are generally generated far from Merced, but the thwarting of council direction after two public meetings on the matter of the second traffic signal on Santa Fe is a local action that shakes the trust of the city government process in Merced.
It is important that when the council holds a public meeting or hearing that citizens believe that the discussion and the conclusions will be what is enforced in guiding the development. Why participate in public meetings unless this is true ? It is important that the City Council’s role of representing the citizens and deciding what is best for the city be respected and implemented. Some may argue that the developer’s solution is a good one. This was discussed thoroughly by the council at the time of approval. It is not the point of importance now. The critical point now is do we operate the city by law and consistent public processes, or do we operate based on the decisions of city officials who happen to be in charge at the time the development is built ?
The city should require the installation of the median island on Santa Fe with left-turn lane for east-bound traffic turning into the shopping center and require that the new second traffic signal on Santa Fe Drive not be activated or be activated as a flashing yellow light only.