Recap: 5/5/26 City Council Meeting
Meeting Summary
This City Council meeting featured several controversial items, including the appeal of a denied Builder’s Remedy housing project, concerns over the funding and accessibility of the State of the City event, questions about a noncompetitive energy audit proposal, and a failed effort to discuss disclosure rules for street repair projects near councilmember homes.
Across the meeting, a familiar divide emerged between councilmembers pushing for more transparency, legal caution, and procedural safeguards, and councilmembers resisting additional review or policy changes. The most consequential vote was the council’s decision to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the Harbor and Hermosa housing project, despite staff confirming that the denial did not identify the kind of specific health or safety risk required under state law.
Appeal Of Planning Commission Denial
Mayor Jung moved to push public comments and the consent calendar to the end of the meeting in order to hear this item first. The motion passed unanimously.
Housing and Economic Development Director Sunayana Thomas and Senior Planner David Lopez gave a joint presentation on this item. They explained that the Planning Commission voted to deny a Builder’s Remedy housing development at Harbor and Hermosa. The developer appealed their decision, arguing that they did not have a legitimate reason to do so under state law.
Builder’s Remedy allows a developer to bypass local zoning and general plan requirements if they submit the application while the city does not have a compliant housing plan. City Councils may only deny a Builder’s Remedy project if there is a written, quantifiable, direct, and specific, health or safety risk.
Councilmember Zahra asked Lopez if the Planning Commission identified a risk that would meet that criteria. Lopez said no. Zahra explained that the decision is about whether the Planning Commission met that threshold, which they did not, so he will be voting to overturn their decision.
Councilmembers Jung and Valencia asked staff why a traffic study was not performed. Staff replied that the project did not generate enough traffic to warrant a traffic study.
Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap spoke about vehicle collisions in the area, saying that this development would exacerbate those issues. Zahra challenged him on this, asking whether there is any data to support that claim. Dunlap responded that staff did not acquire that data.
Councilmember Valencia asked whether the developer would consider undergrounding utilities. Councilmember Charles clarified that the current project’s utilities are underground, and what Valencia is requesting is for the developer to underground the neighbor’s utilities. The developer responded that performing this would potentially derail the project, as they would need permission from neighboring property owners. So they waived that requirement as one of the concessions they receive under state law. Jung then made a motion to approve the development contingent on the developer acquiring that waiver locally rather than from the state.
Both Zahra and Charles objected to this, stating this is needless bureaucracy. The developer also objected to this condition. The motion failed 2-3 (Jung and Valencia in favor).
Dunlap made a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the denial of the project. This motion passed 3-2 (Zahra and Charles opposed) and will return June 16 for the final vote.
State of the City
City staff gave a presentation on the upcoming State of the City event. This event is a keynote speech given by the Mayor on recent city accomplishments, upcoming challenges, and future priorities. Its purpose is to operate as a tool for public transparency and civic engagement, keeping the public informed on where the city is headed.
Zahra raised concerns about the funding sources for the event. 8/9 sponsors have current or recent contracts with the city, while the 9th sponsor is a contributor to Jung’s campaign. He requested a discussion on implementing policies on how sponsorships are handled in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest. He also expressed support for lowering the barrier to entry for the public, stating that the exclusive venue and ticket costs make it unfeasible for all members of the public to attend. Zahra made a motion, seconded by Charles, to have a discussion on these potential policies.
Valencia and Jung argued that the anyone is allowed to sponsor the event and that the donations allow the city to make a small profit from the event. Valencia then made a substitute motion, seconded by Jung, to have the State of the City as-is. The substitute motion failed 2-3 with Jung and Valencia in support. Zahra’s original motion failed 2-3 with Zahra and Charles in support. Dunlap was the sole councilmember to oppose both motions.
Dunlap made a motion to keep this year’s State of the City event as-is, but bring back a discussion on the policies for future years. Zahra asked if the council could review this year’s State of the City address (the mayor’s speech) for approval as the statements being made are representative of the current state of the city. Dunlap opposed and kept his motion unchanged. His motion passed 3-2 with Zahra and Charles opposed.
Veregy Energy Audit
Zahra pulled this item from the consent calendar to get more context. Public Works Director Bise explained that Veregy had been lobbying the city for about 2 years. They are looking to perform an audit of the city’s energy supply to see if there are any cost savings or efficiencies in the current infrastructure. Bise stated that this was not a priority for the city, but when the company offered to perform the initial audit for free, he figured it was a low buy-in project that could reveal savings.
Zahra asked why this wasn’t a competitive process, which Bise explained was due to the cost and time needed to develop an RFP, and the fact this wasn’t a staff priority. Zahra then asked the representative from Veregy, Ryan Gunstream, why the city needs another energy audit when they just had one a few years ago with Noresco, a company Gunstream worked for at the time. Gunstream stated that Noresco made a number of recommendations to the city yet not all the recommendations were selected, so there are additional savings possible.
Zahra explained how with the previous project, there was a competitive process where every company offered a free audit, so he doesn’t understand why this is not the case this time.
Charles moved, seconded by Jung, to approve the item. Motion passed 4-1 with Zahra opposed.
After the meeting, it was discovered that Placentia Mayor Chad Wanke is a lobbyist for Veregy and met with Jung twice before this vote. Wanke gave the maximum contribution to Jung’s campaign on December 31, 2025. A PAC which he serves as the principal officer and treasurer made a donation of $2430 to Jung’s campaign following the vote.
Council Reports
Zahra
Zahra spoke about how the City Council has not demonstrated kindness in the policies they implement, often prioritizing campaign donors over the community. He then shared how a student veterans club at Fullerton College is having a fundraiser in partnership with Raising Canes.
Charles
Charles spoke about Mother’s Day and mental health services. She then spoke about a vote on the street projects last meeting, stating she was not aware that multiple planned projects are adjacent to councilmember homes. She then asked to agendize a discussion about disclosure rules regarding street projects, which Jung opposed. Jung said that he did not want to disclose where he lives for safety reasons. Dunlap also opposed agendizing this discussion, stating that the process to select roads to repair is thorough and comprehensive. Jung made a motion to not agendize the discussion which passed 3-2 (Zahra and Charles opposed).
