Recap: 4/7/26 City Council Meeting
Meeting Summary
City Council denied the signal light at the Valley View x Euclid intersection (3-2, Zahra & Charles opposed), approved increasing the cannabis enforcement penalties (unanimous), and approved the IT contract (unanimous)
Explanations of the items being discussed can be found in the meeting preview.
Agenda Order Changed
A large crowd attended the meeting regarding the signal light. Jung stated that he will be moving public comment to the end of the meeting in order to get to the signal light as soon as possible. Dunlap expressed support. Charles objected, stating there are people who want to speak but aren’t here yet as they assumed the agenda order would remain unchanged. Jung replied “your objection is noted”. Charles made the motion, seconded by Zahra, to overrule Jung and allow the agenda to remain unchanged. Motion failed 2-3 (Jung, Dunlap, Valencia opposed).
A couple of residents messaged me sharing that they were unable to speak on the item due to this change. They also shared that they were having issues with joining Zoom and were in communication with the clerk’s office who confirmed they were having issues.
Signal Light
Prior to public comment, it was disclosed that Jung inadvertently selected “Reply All” to an email to the City Council in which he expressed his position on the item. Under California law, City Councilmembers may not discuss how they will vote on an item with a majority of councilmembers. The City Attorney stated that because Jung immediately notified him of the issue and stated it was inadvertent, it is not necessary for him to recuse himself on this item.
Public comment included many residents who lived in the area that this light would be installed. Most speakers spoke in opposition to the project, with a few speaking in support. The opposition expressed concerns about vehicles cutting through their neighborhood and increased traffic congestion. Those in support spoke on the safety issues at this intersection, the City’s legal liability should a collision occur, and the poor visibility given the slope of the road.
Jung opened the discussion by stating that he believes the solution is increased enforcement of speeding in the area and will be voting no.
Zahra stated that he thinks the majority will vote to deny this, and if that is the case, that they direct staff to explore other options to improve the safety at this intersection.
Charles asked the City’s traffic engineer what they have done so far to address the safety concerns: widened the lanes, changed the angle of turns, improved the signage, and installed speed signs. These have not resolved the safety issue. Charles said that signal lights are used to control dangerous traffic, and that speed humps can be used to limit cut-through traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods. She said she doesn’t like to go against public opinion, but that this is a safety issue that she thinks they need to take seriously.
Dunlap stated that the problem with this intersection is Euclid, not Valley View. He said that they sent this item back to the Transportation Commission to address resident concerns yet the item returned back to them unchanged. Dunlap closed by saying that the signal light would increase traffic and that the “common sense impact” is bad.
Valencia said that she appreciates people coming out and speaking and will be voting no.
Zahra requested that in the denial that they give staff specific instructions as to how to solve the safety issue. Jung, Dunlap, and Valencia said that staff understands what they need to do. Charles pushed back saying that the traffic engineer made it clear that they have tried many different options already. The City Manager joined the discussion to confirm that staff has tried many measures and so he can’t guarantee that staff will come back with a solution.
City Council voted to deny the signal light installation 3-2 (Charles & Zahra opposed)
Cannabis Enforcement
Jung stated that there are bad actors who see the current penalties as simply a cost of doing business. He agrees with streamlining enforcement and increasing penalties, moving to approve this item with Zahra seconding.
Zahra stated that this is helpful for enforcement in the short term, but that this is not the long term solution. He said that there is a market for cannabis in the city, and it is not difficult for people to obtain it. So, the city’s current policy has been ineffective and a cost to the city. The long term solution would be to bring those consumers into regulated shops that will be safer and offer the city some control. He also spoke about how this could generate revenue for the city, as opposed to being a financial burden.
Charles asked what the legal dispensaries in Costa Mesa, a city that implemented a similar policy, thought about this current policy. Staff shared that legal dispensaries generally like the increased enforcement as it helps consumers choose the regulated shops over the illegal dispensaries.
Item approved 5-0
IT Contract
City Council had questions on the details of the contract, the company’s history, and potential impacts to service levels. Council found no major concerns.
Item approved 5-0
Public Comment
Multiple public commenters spoke on tobacco shops violating current laws, particularly in selling flavored e-cigarettes, selling to minors, and selling illicit drugs.
One commenter spoke on construction tax fraud, that is, the paying of contractors under the table to evade taxes. He continued by saying that these practices hurt workers, but also hurt companies who are following the law as they have to compete with others who are breaking the rules. Lastly, these practices hurt the city as they don’t receive the taxable revenue that could be used to support city services. At least two dozen tradespeople in orange vests were in attendance, with a handful holding signs supporting the commenter’s statement.
One commenter spoke on Dunlap’s behavior last meeting, saying that it violated policy by creating a hostile work environment. Another commenter expressed concerns about residential construction in their neighborhood, which is a preservation district. The next commenter spoke on the City sending him a cease-and-desist letter (see most recent video). Other topics discussed: the decision to move public comment to the end of the meeting, ongoing efforts to recover the remains of fallen soldiers, the parks master plan, the budget error, updating the City’s municipal code, and the actions of ICE.
Council Reports
The Housing Director shared that the construction in the preservation district can only be regulated by objective standards, so there are certain features that they can’t control, particularly the windows.
The City Manager stated that they are in the process of contacting vendors to perform a forensic audit on the budget error.
Zahra expressed support for an investigation into the budget error to rebuild trust with the community. He said he hopes it will come back soon and that it is presented a transparent manner. He disagreed with the decision to send a cease-and-desist. He then asked to agendize a local tobacco license program to regulate the industry within the city, requesting it return within 45 days. Charles seconded.
Charles spoke about her office hours, ICE’s actions, recent events she’s attended, and asked residents to consider signing up for her newsletter.
Valencia spoke on recent events she’s attended.
Dunlap spoke about the budget issue, requesting that the staff bring back an item to expand the Fiscal Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee and exploring cuts/privatization of services.
