Read the April 17 meeting.

To the Pledge of Allegiance, please stand. Do we actually have a member, a student today? No, we do not. Councilman Villegas, can you please lead us in the pledge?

To the right hand of your heart, ready to begin.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, one God, indivisible, with liberty and justice at all for all.

Madam Clerk, do we have any ceremonial presentations?

We have Roger Aragon, who's here for our invocation.

Invocation, yes.

Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we thank you, Lord, for tonight as we gather for city business. We ask, like always, Lord, for your wisdom. Lord, for the mayor, our city council personnel, all those that make decisions for this great city, all the departments that are involved, our police, fire, and every area, we ask for your wisdom, your protection for our people that are involved in the city. We thank you for tonight's meeting, for the direction. We give you praise and thanks in the name of Jesus. Amen.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, do we have any ceremonial presentations? No ceremonial presentations. Great. Thank you.

As my colleagues do come up here, I'm going to ask our city attorney, she can please come forward and our city manager so we can do our closed session report.

Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem and Council. There are several items to report out of closed session this evening.

Councilman Tino-Hero noted the outset was absent from the proceedings, and the votes will reflect that. In the manner of Jessica Stevens versus the City of Santa Ana, by a 6-0 vote, the Council approved a settlement in the amount of $70,000. In the matter of the OC Catholic Worker versus the City of Santa Ana et al, by a vote of 5-1, the Mayor Pro Tem dissenting, Council authorized the filing of a complaint against the County of Orange and the cities that opposed the siting of homeless resources in their cities after the County of Orange decided to place shelters in those cities and later rescinded that decision.

In dissenting, Council Member Martinez expressed that she preferred legal action against all cities in Orange County. In this matter, the council also directed that the mayor send a demand letter to all other cities.

Next, in the matters of Brendan Sontag versus the City of Santa Ana, Nicole Kijas versus the City of Santa Ana, and the Santa Ana Police Officers Association versus the City of Santa Ana, by a 6-0 vote, council approved a settlement of all three cases in a total amount of $370,000.

In the case of potential litigation, by a 6-0 vote, Council authorized legal action against Crown Castle to seek judicial review under California Government Code Section 65964.1. And finally, in the matter of the real property negotiations, Council approved the acquisition of the subject properties by swapping other city-owned properties and paying $325,000 to make the transaction an even exchange.

Great. Thank you. At this time, we're going to take public comment. And if we could please have Mr. Ed Garza, followed by Dale Helvick.

Good evening, my name is Ed Garza and I support Lenore Albert Sheridan for Orange County District Attorney. Lenore would be the first female elected as your Orange County District Attorney. She has been a successful consumer protection lawyer, running her own law firm for 17 years in Huntington Beach. Crusading for victims' rights, civil rights, fair justice, and equal access to the courts, she will uphold the law and protect consumers. She has promised to take on violent predators, fraudsters, corruption, big polluters, traffickers of women and children. Mr. Garza?

Mr. City Attorney?

Mr. Garza, public comment is typically limited to matters that are agendized and matters within the jurisdiction of the city.

Your comment appears to be to exceed those limitations. I am here as a speaker. We've spoken at other city council meetings and we've never had any problems speaking with that. I don't understand why I can't be here in support of someone who's running for an office countywide. Again, the Brown Act limits public comment to matters that are on the agenda or other matters that are within the jurisdiction of the city of Santa Ana. So my advice to the Mayor Pro Tem is that she is able to ask you to conclude your comment.

If you conclude your comments, sir.

I can finish?

You can conclude.

Okay, well, does that mean I can take up my three minutes, finish my three minutes?

No, if you just could wrap up because you're not within the jurisdiction. Your comments are not within the jurisdiction of the city.

Okay.

Well, Lenore wanted me to tell you that she would be honored to serve you and ask for your vote. Thank you, Mr. Garza. First elected female district attorney of Orange County. Thank you, Mr. Garza. Thank you.

Followed by Dale Halvick. And then Billy Lee.

Good evening, Mayor, Pro Tem, and Council Members. Definition of propaganda is information, especially of a biased or misleading nature used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Recently, the developers of 2525 sent out a mailer that can only be categorized as propaganda. It was sent out to not all the residents of Santa Ana, but a selected few, it seems like. It says they've worked closely with our neighbors to come up with their project on how it should go forward.

and I don't know how this project is being fairly represented when we had a survey that over 96% of the people in Park Santiago opposed. The mailer says it was designed with Park Santiago in mind, yet it does not want to take the input from the citizens that are most concerned about it. If it did, it would be a project, they would hear that the project is just not a responsible use of the land that they have selected to put their project on. The people of Santa Ana has been speaking about this for several months now.

We are not opposed to development of the property. We are just opposed to the project that they are proposing for the property. and it's going to essentially be one of eight projects being put up in North Santa Ana adding another 500 units to the area. We already have 1,987 on the books for that area and we just don't like it. So we're hoping that we'll meet with the remaining two council members, Mr. Villegas and Mr. Tinajero here in the coming weeks.

so we can talk to them about it as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Halbert. Billy Lee, followed by Jeff Dresser, and then Brett Barbary.

Good evening. My name is Billy Lee. My purpose is sort of like his to address the projects at 2525 Main Street, and the developer, Vineyard Developing, who has demonstrated skillful deceit. I will address one layer of the Vineyard's deceit tonight. In this brochure he spoke of, they say, Dear Neighbor, no, no, they're not living in our community. They're not residents of our community, and yet they call themselves neighbor. Two, our company has worked closely with neighbors.

No, no, denying and ignoring our concerns, like emptying the vehicles on the Main Street in the morning hours, 496 people potentially, and then again in the evening. I myself come down Main Street, and I know that that traffic is unthinkable. Three, our company has worked closely to be better neighbors to Santiago Park. No, they are using Santiago Park as a connector to candy coat the development intent. And then four, to be sure we are a good fit for City Park Sandero. No, only concern is their profit, otherwise they would address our concerns.

The project proposed and the deceit associated with promises lawsuits against vineyard development and the city of Santa Ana. To remind you, Santiago Park community has existed as a great and cohesive community for 60 to 70 years. We residents are proud and we're secure with our heritage as it is. Finally, if our representative, Mr. Solario, is not willing or able to address and expose vineyard development deceits, you other council members must identify and take appropriate action and keep your legal skirts clean.

And then I pray you won't have to apologize to your grandchildren that you allowed the project to go forward like you did when you allowed the razzing of the beautiful Victorian buildings along Bush Street a number of years ago in placement of just brick and mortar.

Thank you, Mr. Lee. Mr. Dresser, followed by Brett Barbary.

Hi, I'm here also in opposition of 2525 North Main Street. This is the brochure that was mailed to all the residents in the Park San Diego neighborhood, or at least most of them. And as the other two speakers before me said, it implies or it infers that they're doing this with the cooperation of the city and that it was the city's idea that this project be considered and proposed as it's being proposed.

So it's misrepresenting, I believe, because it's not the city's inference that this project go forward, that it's, as far as I understand, we're in the process of evaluating the project, correct? That's where we're at right now. We're evaluating the project. But this doesn't imply that this is very misleading in that it says that based on the city's information input from the city, that's why they're putting this project there or that's why they're proposing it.

So, that's what the developer of this project is doing, is he's putting this back on the city council that it's a done deal, and that if not for you, they wouldn't even be there proposing this project. So, as a resident of Park San Diego, this is very misleading, and it does not sit well with us, and it shouldn't sit well with you, that the developer is putting this back on the city, that it's your decision that this go in as it's being proposed.

Thank you, Mr. Tresher. Brett Barbary.

Good evening, Madam Mayor Pro Tem, members of the council. My name is Brett Barbary. I'm privileged to serve as the president of the Municipal Water District of Orange County and also serve with Michelle up at MET as a MET director. And I just want to commend her for her historic vote last week for the Twin Tunnels. that Michelle was absolutely critical, and she is the vote that put us over 60%, and that is significant. So our children and grandchildren will be very grateful to Michelle for her support of the project. Orange County led the way and really delivered for Southern California.

So I just wanted the council to know what a great job she did and to really thank her for her support and leadership on that.

Thank you, Brett. So next we have the consent calendar items. Any members of the public wish to pull up? Actually, my colleagues wish to pull any items? I'm going to pull one and I'm just a no for the record, Madam City Attorney, and that's on 25F.

And Madam Mayor Pro Tem, I'm a no on 19D as in David.

19D. Councilman Sarmiento.

I'd like to pull 25H.

25H.

And I'd like to pull item 25G.

25G.

Great, and before we move forward the consent calendar and approve that, accept those items, we do have some members that wish to speak of items that we did not pull, so I'm going to go with that first. So we have Iglia Tiglia on 11A and 19D, and then followed by Robert Tiglia, 11A and 19D.

Good evening, Mayor Breton Martinez and the respectful Santa Ana Council members. My name is Ilya Tseglin. I support the item 11A and 19D to follow Manit's code, section 10152, and also both items.

But because it's in connection with police, I want to talk about how to help my family and save the life of my innocent son Nate. If I cease to escort me and the community to his group home, 903 South Harmon Street in Santa Ana, with following unbiased police report.

Everyone in the community has been shocked in how my son has been mistreated by NOM owner Luis Pena and his staff as a vendor of Orange County Regional Center and the management of director Orange County Regional Center Larry Landauer, fabricated the information. If I would receive the unbiased police report of my and the community observation, then it will be a possibility that my son will be safe.

Previously, two times, I deeply appreciated the honest law enforcement from Santa Ana Police who observed his condition and prepared the reports, but when I received the copy of these reports, but information was not readable. Always, the staff restricted the community for the visitation and phone communication. NAIT has been mistreated in violation of Constitution, Probate Law, Disability, Lanterman Act, and any existing law and moral standard. The case of abusive power over NAIT is more extreme.

Thank you, Mr. Tigla.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you so very much. Robert, good evening.

Hello, Honorable Santa Ana City Council, Robert Seglin, Brother Nate Seglin. With regard to those two items, I would be supportive as long as these canines or whatever other means could help officers use less lethal force and less abuse of power. speaking of abusive power an example of a use of misuse of power as opposed to a more proper use of power would be where as I said before my brother Renate was kidnapped twice by the Irvine Police Department so this was started by the Irvine Police Department and

in contempt as I said before three writs of habeas corpus related to probate case, probate case number 8246780, released on his third writ of habeas corpus back in December 31st, 2013, after the denial of the DDS's ex-party petition to suspend against them for conservatorship. So you had a release, and in contempt of that release, okay, they entered the home without order, without a court order, without exigent circumstances and so forth. So despite that, he was placed in a group home

because being placed on a 6500 or any one of those holes, 5150, 52, these were not proper and not legal, but the regional center used that. They put him in various facilities. So instead they put him in a group home because that's illegal, to put him in a facility and then remove the conservatorship from the family. But obviously the issue was that there was some cover-up and so forth. And so not only the police, but I would say the adult protective services and other agencies don't seem to have been coordinated in respect to reports of abuse in the group home,

whereas in the home, without any evidence, they took him out. They didn't have any evidence of exigent circumstances and so forth other than fabricating evidence. So, therefore, I would hope that in a situation in which an individual might be in danger, police could help intervene with medical personnel.

Thank you so very much. Have a great evening. Madam Clerk, if I could please get a motion. We'll move the items forward. Do I have a motion on the consent?

Some move.

All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

So first item is 25H.

Madam Mayor Pro Tem, before we...

25G or 25? 25G, then 25H.

Before we do that, and I know we can't have an extended conversation, but I did receive a number of emails and calls regarding the 2525 North Main project. And what I can share is right now it's going through an environmental review and probably late summer fall it'll come to the City Council for consideration so that's really when Council will be in a position to take action or not and because there's a quasi judicial aspect to it it really is difficult for us to say whether we support or oppose a project like that. Councilmember Solorik

if you can please just wrap up because it's an item not on the agenda. Yes correct which is I'm just giving a process update but I appreciate you know that the individuals that came forward.

Thank you. Item 25G.

I think that item was yours, Councilman Salonio.

Yes, this relates to our open government platform services agreement. And I know that I and the Mayor Pro Tem have been really interested in having a stronger open data platform for our website overall. if maybe the staff can speak to how this agreement or future agreements can help us achieve a true open data platform on our website, that would be fantastic.

Well, they're coming up. There's nearby cities like Anaheim. They have great open data platforms where you get a lot of real-time information, deep information from the city.

Yes, members of the city council. This particular item is just for the financial information to provide the open financial information. We currently are implementing a new website which includes an open data portal, which is more similar to what you're used to seeing at the other cities like Anaheim, where we have all kinds of data, police data, permit data, in addition to the financial data. So this was put in place two years ago, and we're continuing to keep it for the financial data until we can move it over to another portal or just combine them together.

When do you think we'll have this updated website platform? Probably within the summer, by the end of the summer. This summer, excellent. Thank you so much.

Do I have a motion to approve?

So moved. Second.

All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Councilman Benavides, you have item 25H.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I'd like to move this item with comment. there's some of the history in this is in our in the agenda. In essence we have about two years back in April of 2016, the city extended an RFP and turned into an agreement with Northstar Branding to do a comprehensive branding study. There's been a very thorough process both internal surveys, focus groups within the city, outside of the city myself Councilman Solorio had an opportunity to be in a session with with

the the agency the advertising agency and I think some of you have been as well in essence this item it brings us to a place where we're almost at the point of having North Star branding ready to present to council and then to the community some of the findings and recommendations we simply need an additional some additional time anticipate that will be supportive that my colleagues will be supportive main thing that I just wanted to make a point here is that it I've had the opportunity to be a part of a committee along with several members of the community and I'm very much looking forward to the the

outcomes findings very soon to come and hoping that it will be able to help us truly strengthen the city's image both internally externally so good things coming and again my main point there is to move the item to provide a brief update.

Do we have a second? Second. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Now we're moving to the business calendar items. I know there are some items that my colleagues wanted to move around. I will first if we can please move towards because I know some of us do have to leave and wanted to bring forward first the cannabis item and then I know I think Councilman Sarmiento is not feeling well and so if we just could do this very quickly and then bring you back so that there's another item so if you want

to excuse yourself. Sure I will be recusing myself on this matter as I have on the others because I do have an associate that may be doing business

in the city. Thank you. So this is 75C

and we do have some members that wish to speak at this time, and so I am going to open this public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the certain sections of Chapters 8, 18, and 40 to allow for commercial cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution activities to amend certain codes and enforcement and procedures relating to utility shutoffs. And we do have, Madam Clerk, did we receive any written communication via email? No, we have not. Great. We do have members to wish to speak at this time, so I'm going to ask for Jason Lilly, followed by Malahat Rafihi, and followed by Claudio Gallegos.

Hello, my name is Jason Lilly. I am one of the owners of one of the Measure VB shops, Cannabis Works. and I would like to put our favor in support of opening up this of approving this ordinance and opening up these licenses but I'd also like to speak to an issue that isn't addressed and that's the fees that is associated with the various types of licenses that are available with regard specifically to cultivation manufacturing and distribution and we have some research from the County of Monterey an analysis that was done and when we consider the fact that if we were to we want to figure out a way to make those taxes

equitable to bring in revenue but at the same time serve the community at a reasonable rate and if we put heavy taxes let's say the 8% that's currently on retail in all facets of both cultivation manufacturing and distribution when you add in the excise tax and the sales tax you're looking at about a 66% tax rate overall. So I can send you this information if you would like because a lot of the cities are now considering how it makes no sense to charge the distribution tax in addition to the excise tax because then you're really just complicating and piling one tax on top of the

other. The entire state's realizing right now that in order to help suspend the black market and to continue to bring the revenue into the city and to help these companies stay within Santa Ana and not go to other lower tax areas we need to figure out a way to get rid of the black market create partnerships that will bring the city in more tax revenue you know based on the sales tax and and not over taxing every single step of this every single step of this process from cultivation

down to retail great thank you Malahat Rafi followed by Claudio Gallegos

thank you so much council members I want to first start off by thanking the city staff that has been working so diligently over the years to help this process along we're aware of how much of a lightning bolt item this can be for most of you seeking re-election seeking support from the community but it was your leadership and vision that allowed Santa Ana to move forward and being a pioneer in this space of cannabis and taking the next step now to commercialize cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, distribution will only make the industry stronger. It will help with more revenue for the city which will

then lead to all the things we all want to work on. I know you guys grapple with the homeless crises or opioid crises and all the other shortfalls in the budget and I think I believe strongly that once the existing businesses are allowed to manufacture, cultivate, and distribute and have vertically integrated businesses, it's going to benefit the city, it's going to benefit the business owners, and it's going to ultimately benefit the residents and business partners here in Santa Ana. So officially, from the Santa Ana Cannabis Association, we support

moving forward with this ordinance, and we look forward to continue to work with you.

Great, thank you. Claudio Gallegos.

Good evening, Council. I am here on behalf of Congressman Lou Correa to express support for Item 75C and the approval of the Cannabis Cultivation Ordinance. Congressman Correa commends your dedication to making Santa Ana a leader in the cannabis industry and helping bring good businesses to Santa Ana, to bring more revenue to the city. We encourage you to continue that by the approval of this ordinance this evening, And we hope that this is approved, and we hope this can help make Santa Ana a much better place. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Going to bring this back to our council here. Do we wish to have a presentation? Our staff, if not, they're here for questions.

I'll make a motion to approve to start discussion.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

We have a first and a second. Open up for discussion. Yes, Councilman Benavides.

Thank you, Mayor Portem. I want to go back to the comment that one of the speakers made. I asked of staff a little bit more background on the operational fees for these different uses, and specifically as it relates to how they compare. Some of the comments I've made previous, just this consistent, and consent to a meeting I had with staff last week. I think Measure BB initially wasn't necessarily personally a fan or supportive. However, the voters approved and the state of California voters approved.

At this point, if we're going to have these types of businesses, I want to ensure that we're doing what we can to be competitive and to ensure that this whole process that we're going through is actually going to prove fruitful and that we are going to, in fact, be able to have the benefits of additional revenue in our city.

So the question has been, we heard it today, I've had some communication sent to me as well directly indicating that our operational fees at about 8% is excessive in comparison to other jurisdictions that are considering or that have adopted some of these commercial uses. So can you speak to that? Yes, thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, members of the City Council. If I can ask the clerk's office to put a slide up so that the community can also see this information. This is a comparison.

So one of the things to be clear about is that it's difficult to compare because not every jurisdiction allows the same uses. So we have to look at both what the rates are and then the offerings because that makes a distinction and then some philosophical differences. So one of the things before I get into some of these comparisons is that if approved tonight and then at our second reading, we would be the only L.A. Orange County area city that has complete vertical integration. So that is a very unique thing.

So that in and of itself will add to our market competitiveness because what we've heard from many in the industry is the desire to have that vertical integration. Our nearest city that has any of the available uses is the city of Costa Mesa, which is outlined here. And you'll see that they're at 6%, but they do not allow retail. So they're looking at a different strategy. So that also plays into it. As part of the vertical integration, we would be looking at economic development and clustering. So not just the cannabis industry, but the amenities, the services, the professional services that would support the industry.

So just in basis of comparison to some of the surrounding areas, so Los Angeles City is 8 to 10%. So those are some of the considerations. When you look at some of the cities like Oakland, they have a lower medicinal. Theirs is 5, ours is 6. But then when you look at gross receipts and some of the other elements, adult use there is 10%. Looking a little closer, Long Beach, you're looking at 6 to 8%, which is right in line with where we are. their square footage is actually significantly higher than what ours is. And remember that the square footage is not an and, it's an or. So it's the greater of the two.

So it's either square footage or gross receipts, not both. So those are some of the elements to remember. City of Irvine, there it says none, but remember that they only have testing. And with that, they have a philosophical position on not having business license fees. so just a little bit of information in terms of how the comparison works and it is very complex it does vary up and down the state but when looking at our local area and the fact that we are uniquely positioned between los angeles and san diego and our freeway accessibility

we really do think that we are positioned as was mentioned by one of the speakers and by the city Council, we are a leader in this area. We were the only one to be open and available to allow our operators, our retail operators, on January 1st. So we do have market competitiveness and advantages that others in the industry don't have. Thank you. I have to address my question. And actually, I apologize. One quick follow-up. The jurisdictions that are listed here,

Is that comprehensive of all the jurisdictions in the area that, and there's some that are even outside the area up in Northern California, but that allow for commercial uses? So there are other users. In the immediate local area in Orange County, this is it. Will more come on board? At some point, maybe. Some cities have already taken their positions. but this gives us a good kind of basis in terms of cross-section some are lower some are higher

some are as high as 20 percent but others are zero or one percent so it really depends on what you're trying to do so i think part of the determination and the policy decision for the city council is what do you want your local market to look like last question on this item

I thought you only had one.

I know. He just mentioned something and it triggered another question. No, just at any point we could revisit the operational. Absolutely.

It would be an ordinance and we could bring that back. We could evaluate it, look at it, and if there are issues, we can definitely come back and address those. We know that as the industry changes and as the state makes changes, there are numerous bills right now before the legislature at the state level. There will be some adjustments that need to be made. Thank you.

Great. Thanks. Any more questions? Councilman Salorio?

Thank you.

A few things, mainly comments. Number one, I do like that staff is recommending that we use revenue from this industry as with our retail dispensaries to go towards things like enforcement and youth programs. I think that's a good use as well as some administrative dollars, so I compliment that. I know it's part of the overall community benefit plan strategy.

Some elements I see here, but maybe when we fully flesh out the operational agreements, I know in prior things we've had stronger language regarding the type of labor agreements that they should have. I think we were trying to model Long Beach. I know our Public Safety Committee had started that trend, as well as that they consider and have local hire and local sourcing programs so that our community as a whole and our businesses can benefit. So if you could, again, just for consistency with everything else, do that.

on the subject of fees, they kind of seem like they fall in the general ballpark, but one of the things I'd like to see, both with respect to fees, but also how many of this there might be, especially since we don't have a cap, that maybe in about a year we do a review of kind of where we're at with the number of and the revenue, et cetera, so we can see if it still makes sense to have no caps perhaps or to see if the fees are still applicable.

I also don't necessarily directly see, though I think I heard our city attorney say that there is a provision saying one application per address can be submitted at a time. Is that, do you think, the intent of what we're going to try to do here?

So what we have in there, and it's on page 24 of the ordinance, is for any applications after July 1, 2018, site control would need to be identified at the time of application.

So when they apply, so that way there will be only one per dress, okay, because I know we've had confusion on other items.

Finally, actually two finalies. back to the fees I do think that as staff looks at where there's co-location that we maybe we should be a little bit careful we don't really want in some cases double or triple tax the same businesses I mean if you have a retail outlet that is growing their own product and manufacturing or distributing their own product it could potentially the same product can be taxed two or three times along the way maybe there's some ways to try to control that or only maybe tax it twice but if it's you know three times or more that does seem

excessive to me I think as a standalone the 8% thing makes okay sense but if it's going to be on the same side and tax multiple times that does not seem to make a lot of sense. Finally I think for streamlining and other issues that you raise the staff report to give priority to existing dispensaries so that we consider their applications first get information to them first get them up and going I think that makes a lot of sense and since there's no caps there's there aren't any competitive advantage issues to doing that but there are a lot of I think operational and revenue benefits for them in the city so if you

can as you're considering the process take that into account thank you

Any more questions and comments from the council?

No, we have a first and a second. I do have a question. Yes, Councilman Bennett.

Thank you, Mayor Patel. Just a quick question. Because I was in a meeting with staff and I had some similar questions with regard to not tax but the operational fees when it comes to different commercial uses within the whole idea of vertical integration and the rationale behind separate operational fees for whether it be cultivation, manufacturing, distribution.

Could you explain that, touch on that, on how, I remember some of what you mentioned, that in some cases something might be cultivated, but then the distribution would be going to another issue? Correct. It wouldn't be outside of the realm of possibility where you may have an individual at a site, or a company at a site, I should say, that is doing retail, manufacturing, cultivation, and distribution, and they may not necessarily sell all of their product on site. they may either have a specific strand or they may just have market competitiveness

in terms of how they cultivate, for example, that they have excess inventory where they would want to then sell that to another individual or another company at a wholesale price, for example. So there wouldn't necessarily be the limitation that they could not do that. So there's no restriction saying that it has to remain on site. So they absolutely could distribute that. and that's why we understand that the distribution component of this will be critical

more so than anything so that there is the ability for those things to happen. And that will just be part of the natural market conditions that will occur. Some will be better at certain areas or want to focus if the ROI is there for them. So we want to allow for the flexibility of that, which is partially why you would have the multiple fees for those different levels, because it may not all stay on site.

That helped me before, so I just wanted to appreciate you answering the question now again. Thank you.

Great. Thanks, Councilman Benavides. Just very quickly, and I know Councilman Solorio mentioned that a percentage of this money will be going to youth programs and enforcement. And I think I said it in the past that it's our code enforcement that really comes and shuts down the retail dispensaries, the illegal ones. And we don't have dedicated staff. And, you know, I think one of the issues about, you know, bringing this forward is because we had this discussion in the past, is that, you know, we do have, you know, some illegal shops that are really taking business from the bona fide shops.

And we're doing everything we possibly can. And I know that supposedly we only have three or four illegal ones operating. But when you speak to the industry, they will say that there's a lot more than that. And so I would just hope that this council and our staff would move towards, now that we're putting all the uses forward, to dedicate three code enforcement staff. Dedicate three to this industry. If you wanted to succeed, the only way you're going to be able to do that is by dedicating the right staff that is going to be able to do the right job to do the enforcement. It's not typically our police department.

The police department is actually coming when there is a massive raid. They're going to take property. But it's typically code enforcement that is going out there when they're receiving complaints, on and so forth. Currently now we only have 15 code enforcement officers for the entire city doing multiple things. You know, we cannot, we need to invest as much as we possibly can in code enforcement. And we're not doing that. And we're starting to see the results out there in the community. And so bringing these other uses, we need to make sure that we dedicate manpower to this industry.

And then lastly, I definitely understand why the industry wants us to reduce our tax. But I would consider and ask and implore you to continue to go to the state and asking them to lower. Because the sales tax, the state received 6% already of the 7.75 plus 15%. So the state is taxing you at 21%. And so 21 versus 8 or 9% on our end. And we're having to be burdened with all the impacts while the state is getting 21%. They're just reining in the money without providing any resources back to local municipalities.

And that's the reality that a lot of times folks don't understand that we don't receive all the sales tax. The 7.75 here, you know, 6% is going to the state. And so I just want to make sure that I'm able to articulate that. And the reason being why our staff is putting that 8% is not because we want to put you all out of business. But the reality is that a percent of our sales tax is going to the state. And while they're taxing you at 15%, something has to give. The state needs to really realize that if, you know, they want to make sure that this industry is successful, that they need to reduce their percentage

because it's not fair for local municipalities wanting to bring this to our community and wanting to do right, but you all are continuing to ask us to reduce our percentage when their percentage is way much higher than ours. And so I just wanted to articulate that as we move forward, and hopefully that the state will do what's right, and then eventually we can come back here at the local level and really look at all our uses and see what makes the most sense to help this industry. But right now, you know, the burden is on us while the state is receiving the majority of the revenue, the tax revenue, and not the city of Santa Ana.

And so I just wanted just to state that because it's a true fact. Yes, Councilman Salonio.

I wanted to add something you've said on the amount of money that goes towards enforcement and youth programs. I think with our current dispensary system, we're now a few months into it. I think there's been quite a bit of revenue that has come in. I don't know if you have a general ballpark figure that you could share. But I do want some of that money to, as soon as possible, go towards code enforcement because they do need staffing. And I think we speak of enforcement. It's code enforcement, it's police, and also the city attorney's office because they work on that together.

but I want us to really start to get that money out for enforcement and youth programs because you might remember that when Councilmember Villegas and I started on this council a little over a year ago, I had made mention that the city likes to make promises, including financial ones, and then we don't deliver. So we have these high fees to go towards things like this, and we're a few months into it and dispensaries are out there, legal and illegal. The youth needs as much help as possible, so I don't want us to keep, as Judge Carter said for something else,

chipmunking that money away. We need to spend that money, not hold on to it for the next fiscal year or the fiscal year after that. Do you have a general sense of how much revenue has come in from adult use?

From adult use, don't quote me on the number, but for the two months, because there's a 30-day reporting lag, it's about $600,000.

Right. So $600,000 for a two-month clip, that can start paying for the salary of a code enforcement officer. That can help with some of our summer programs or our summer nights program that we're talking about. So let's get a plan on that. Maybe our city manager can start working on the plan for how we're going to spend that money this fiscal year. That would be fantastic. Thank you.

Great. Any more questions? If not, we had a first and second. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. We're now going to move to the next item, which is 75A. And then my colleagues asked me to also move 85A up. So if we can go to 75A, which is this is a time for a public hearing to consider an appeal to allow for the construction of a seven story, 260 unit mix building, the Madison planning staff is available to present. But I know they presented to us two weeks ago, so obviously we don't need that presentation. I would ask, do we have Madam Clerk, did we receive any written communication?

The communication that we received has been provided to the council and uploaded on the website.

Thank you so very much. Councilman Sarmiento is here. And so we do have a couple members that wish to speak. And so on that item, if I can please have Mr. David Waite, followed by Dennis Liu and Robert Bob Bisno.

Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem Martinez, members of the City Council. My name is David Waite. I am the land use attorney for the adjacent property owner of the Xerox office building located at 1851 East 1st Street. I think probably the best way to start is where we left off on this matter two weeks ago. The council may very well recall that our client had expressed some significant concerns about traffic and circulation, particularly as it relates to queuing within the circulation elements for this new project. And we are, at this point, still very much working on trying to reach a solution to that problem.

I want to make sure that there is no misapprehension based upon the staff report. We are in contact with the adjacent property owner to the north, the state fund building. The property owner's representative there actually was out because of a family death and wasn't able to deal with this in the first week after we were before the council on April 3rd. The good news is they have hired their own legal counsel. They are reviewing the circulation that has been proposed. We have been in communication with that representative as recently as April 11th. It is under review.

They are looking at this clockwise circulation plan that we have proposed with Mr. Bisnow. We just don't have yet an answer. The council may recall that when we were before you on April 3rd, the council recognized that we may need more time. Well, in fact, we do need more time. I approach Mr. Bisnow. We've been in communication over the last couple weeks. I asked him whether he would agree to a further continuance of this matter so that we could continue to work out this circulation element for the benefit of all parties. Unfortunately, he was not so willing. I'm sure you'll hear from him this evening.

He'll probably articulate his reasons why. But we still do believe that a solution is really the best way to go on this. We clearly want to avoid litigation with the city on the traffic issues. We believe that a solution can be achieved for the benefit of the city. for the benefit of all property owners who are going to be affected by this project. And so we would request some additional time. We think an additional 30 days to be on the safe side, but minimally another couple of weeks to see if we can get a favorable and positive response out of the property owner to the north.

Absent that, we unfortunately are down a different path. So we really would implore upon you for more time. Thank you.

Donson Liu, followed by Bob Isno.

Hi, good evening. My name is Dawson Liu. I am a transportation engineer with LSA and I was requested by the property owner at the Xerox Center, which is just south of the Madison to review the traffic study for the Madison to see if there were any concerns that they should be thinking of. We found in our review of the study that as David previously mentioned that the The access analysis was lacking and inaccurate compared to what we could see out in the field. We looked at the access because that's what would affect Xerox Center the most,

and we compared the results of the report, which showed that the area in front of their driveway would be clear and that they would be able to get in and out of their driveway relatively uninhibited. When we went out to the field to see how traffic would be like during the morning rush hour and the afternoon rush hour when people are typically coming in and out of their homes or their work offices, we found that the report results did not match up with what we could see out in the field.

We found that the queuing and the congestion outside in front of their driveway would prevent vehicles from entering into or out of the proposed driveway. Following that line of thought, we saw that the recommendation for keeping their driveway clear in the report was a keep clear striping in front of their driveway. We found that this would be great if their report results were true and that there were no congestion or cars lined up in front of their building at all times. Or not all times, but during the morning and afternoon rush hour.

However, this Keep Clear would likely push cars further towards Cabrillo Park Drive rather than letting them queue up as they do now into the parking structure at Xerox Center. For this reasoning, we find that the proposed circulation of knocking down that wall or getting an agreement with the state front and the north would benefit their residents the most because they wouldn't have to try and get out of their driveway and instantly hit a wall of cars trying to leave work at 5 p.m. on a weekday trying to get to the 5 freeway off of Cabrillo Drive.

The full report and our full review of the report is... in your documents that you presented earlier. If you have any questions, I'll be here.

Great, thank you. Mr. Bisnow?

I apologize, I run a tight ship.

Thank you, Mayor Patel, Council Members. Two weeks ago, I represented to you that nothing would be accomplished by a continuance. Unfortunately, that's correct. We don't own the property that the opposing office building wants us to use. If we owned it, we wouldn't have an issue. We've tried to meet since December. They have not told us yet, Mr. Waite, a fine lawyer with a wonderful firm, is new to this job. We were told two months ago they had retained counsel to look at this issue. If they had an interest, they would have talked to us. With regard to the peer review, it failed to evaluate the concessions we've already made.

It failed to evaluate the impact of a monitor. It failed to evaluate the impact of a traffic sign. It failed to evaluate the baseline that our neighbor has already approved, 250 units with the same traffic pattern. You didn't see that in the peer review because it didn't evaluate it. Finally, with regard to the parking, we're seeking a 1.8 to 1 parking ratio, which is a reduction from the current city code of 2.0. But bear in mind, we have more than 60% studios and one bedroom. There is no justification for having two cars when you have a one-bedroom unit or a studio.

Respectfully, we request our development be approved, be approved tonight, so we don't have to appear in front of you again in two weeks or four weeks or thereafter. We do have our traffic engineer and architect here with me, and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Bisnow. Bring this back to the council. Yes, Councilman Benavides.

Thank you, Mayor Portempo. I know you want to make sure to get through items fairly quickly. It's unfortunate that today we weren't able to reach resolution. And even when we discussed this item just two weeks ago, I, in fact, was more of the mindset that giving at least 30 days to be able to give adequate time to be able to have the conversations would have probably been preferred. Clearly tonight we didn't have enough time. The fact that there has been some communication, I think, is a positive thing.

At the end of the day, I think it would serve the project and the neighborhood best to be able to ideally have that egress out of the north part of the building next to the compensation fund building. Xerox building, residence, or property has been longstanding property and business in the city, in that part of town. And I think it would make sense to be able to spend the time to be able to look at all options.

Once all options are exhausted, perhaps it is, whether it be an additional two weeks or 30 days, 45 perhaps, I don't know. But having a time certain, but ensuring that we have an opportunity to exhaust that option, I think, would be in the best interest of this project's success and going forward. So that's going to be my recommendation. I think it makes sense to go ahead and bring the best project forward. I don't know if there's a sense of urgency to approve this tonight.

Councilman Sarmiento.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. And I think that that's reasonable had this been the only time that this matter was before the city. I know that this matter has gone before the Planning Commission. I'm not sure, Madam Clerk, do you know when that date was that this was before that? In any event, I think it was at least maybe a couple of months. So to the extent that there has been sufficient time to address this concern about the queuing, about the traffic impact, In fact, I know we just received this traffic study today done by the folks at Xerox.

So I just think it's maybe an arguable point to say that there is going to be an impact, but I also didn't see in your traffic study that there were some of the mitigating measures that were recommended by the applicant included. So it didn't talk about, I think, having a person out there monitoring traffic, didn't include the stop that was made available on site. And third, I just think if we condition anything on a third party like the state fund building that has nothing to do with this project, is not going to be compelled to do anything about this project,

may or may not want to agree, look, you could do that after the project is approved. They can be approached then. But I think to keep on pushing this out really isn't fair to the applicant. I think we have sufficient time. There was time before the Planning Commission to address this concern. There was time subsequent to the Planning Commission to address this. There was time after the last hearing when we had a full-blown public hearing on this. And we told the attorney, your colleague, who was here on behalf of the tower, to get busy because we had put it over.

And I understand there was a tragedy in his family, and so we are certainly sympathetic to that. But, look, he's not the only attorney in your firm representing your client. So to the extent that you can address this, there's been plenty of time. So I don't know what good two weeks is going to do, four weeks is going to do. Why don't we do six months? And we can certainly get some place then. But look, at that point, then we're being really unfair to applicants. Well, we've done two weeks already, to answer your question. And we did two months before that. So I don't know. I agree with the council member.

We all want to be reasonable. But at some point, you have to be able to come up with a legitimate, credible argument, or you can't.

Great. Thank you. Councilman Solodio?

Yes. Just two points. number one I do think also there's time between now and when the building fully gets constructed and I don't think anyone including the applicant wants you know bad queue in nearby so if there is some more optimal solution you know I would encourage that you know that that dialogue should continue but it's been continuing I think that you know this application is ready I at the last council meeting I didn't support a month continuance but a two week really just so I can look at the parking reduction implications, because that's something that I'm concerned about.

I want to see quality in these types of developments, and then I want to see adequate parking. And I did see that you did your own study. You looked at comparable projects, and as you attested today, many of the units are studios or one-bedroom apartments, so I do think the product is adequately parked. so because of that i am uh ready to to support it today i don't know if we've made a motion yet or if uh you know the council member of ward one would like to make a motion but i'm definitely in

support you know i think the council member i'm not sure if his recommendation was a motion so

no no i didn't make uh a motion yet my my preference would be to allow and i to to allow for for continued i did have a question of staff uh so if you can uh approach uh so two two questions one is uh whether this the the issue of the the ingress egress i think egress in particular to the north whether that was discussed at all i know that planning commission did not approve the item or the uh the project uh or the the request presented before planning commission and now before Council tonight. So I don't know. I'm curious as to whether this issue of the ingress-segress was addressed previously,

whether you know of any history behind there being an attempt to incorporate that into the project. And then the other question I have is whether there would be any leverage if it works. I understand the recommendations by my colleagues that approving the project and continuing to try to address this, but I just don't know that the applicant would have any incentive to continue to work on this. Is there any leverage? Will this be coming back before Council at all in the future, if approved tonight, to be able to see if this item of the egress gets addressed?

Regarding your first question, Council Member Benavides, it was the Planning Commission did take action on this in December of last year. and at that time they had also continued it once or they had denied it and sent it forward and it was based on the number of parking spaces they were uncomfortable with the 1.8 number of parking spaces as well as a minor issue was the entrance but the major issue for them was the parking in addition to that your second question was

is there automatically a method for them to come back to the City Council? And that would be no, there would not be. You would be granting the entitlement to them. The only time that it might come back would be if you did not make some sort of motion attached to the moving forward that said that it did not need council approval okay let me state that over again if you want to see it again all you would do would adopt it and then they

would there would have to be additional site plan review of the new entrance because you're adopting it with the current entrance that's shown on the plans and so you would need to however if you would like to be able to have the applicant move forward with either option, either the

entrance on the south on Xerox Drive, or allow them to go to the north, you could do it subject to staff review of that or subject to council review of that northern entrance. Thank you for that. I hate to continue projects, delay them. Overall, I think this is going to be a good project. I think what would make it that much better is to be able to allow for, to alleviate some of the congestion that is, I think, it'd be hard to argue that we're

not going to see, again, more vehicles, more congestion there, one driveway, two buildings, residential and commercial so having this additional uh egress uh would i think make it that much stronger of a or better of a project so i i my recommendation and is is you know to see if looks like they have some communication uh my recognition of councils is to consider two weeks to be able to let them figure this out if within that time it that there's uh there is a resolution, then moving forward would be what would make the most sense.

My concern, again, is that beyond tonight, once we approve, that there's really no reason or leverage for the applicant to come back and consider anything beyond what's been approved.

Thank you, Councilman Benavidez. Councilman Sarmiento and Councilman Tina Harrell.

Yeah, I was simply going to go ahead and move the item and move it with the understanding that this comes back to us for second reading. So to the extent that the applicant is agreeable to reach out to the, not only counsel that's present here today, but also to the neighbor, and we call it the state fund building, I think, you know, Caltrans is there now, even though they haven't changed out the signs. But they know a little bit about traffic, so maybe they're, you know, more receptive to maybe some contact.

So to the extent between now and second reading, if that's okay with you, we'll kind of do it as a condition precedent or just a friendly recommendation for you to do that.

Yeah, we got a second. And for that reason, because they can communicate during that and it's going to come back to us again.

All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

I'll support. Just want to make this comment to the applicant. I do hope that there is some. We're making this recommendation tonight in good faith. and and and

that ordinances this is yeah it's a red this is not an ordinance so there is no

second reading there is no second reading on this the only time you would see it is if the is if it's if the site pan changes and that would allow you to

do that I think the applicant wants to say something he's stepping up keep it

short mr. applicant with or without a second reading if we can come to terms with the Caltrans slash state comp building we will redraw the plans it would be our privilege to work with our neighbors in doing that we've been a good neighbor throughout as you can evidence by the concessions we've made

so in essence we have motion we have a second it sounds like that we don't have leverage and I do just hope that there's I would like to hear from the

gentlemen, since we gave the applicant a quick second.

Okay.

Thank you. I appreciate the additional time.

And I will try to be brief.

We need more time. If you approve this tonight, it's done. Our leverage is gone, and we will have no ability, notwithstanding the good statements of cooperation, but if it's approved tonight, it's approved. And so state fund, just as Councilman Sarmiento acknowledged, they do have the expertise. They need the time. This can't possibly be done in this short amount of time. And they've hired legal counsel. They're looking at the easements. They're looking at the circulation. They need more time. It cannot be done in two weeks. We are asking for a very short amount of additional time. There should be no haste to judgment on this.

We should grant the time for everybody's interest. take the time we need to try to get it right. Please.

I just wanted to hear a final word. Thank you.

Great. We had a first and a second. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye.

No.

Great. Motion carries.

Mayor Pro Tem, I didn't get a maker or a second on that.

Maker was Councilman Sarmiento. Second was Councilman Dinajero.

Great. Moving forward now to 85A. and I'll ask on the authors that brought this item up, Councilman Benavides and Councilman Sarmiento.

Thank you, Mayor Potem. I'll go ahead and...

Oh, yes, my apologies. We do have speakers that wish to speak at this time.

If I could please have Debbie McEwen, followed by Miguel Hernandez, and Del Halving.

Good evening. So this 85A is a three-parter. It's lengthy. It's convoluted. It's fairly ridiculous. This is just, if you break it down by the numbers, the first one, the deal is done. To continue harping on it is just not necessary. For the second one, to plan for change in the future, to perhaps go towards Pacific elections, all of that is fine.

But let's do it in the time and the plans set forward by the California Voting Rights Act, or even using the Sunshine Ordinance that the city adopted, and is always referring to how important it is to follow that line of education so people can understand it, learn about it, and then make an intelligent decision after they have all the facts. That is all fine when it comes to, let's say, Part 2.

And for part three of this, where they're talking about redrawing the boundaries, it seems to be the cart before the horse. First, you don't really truly know whether or not, well, I would imagine the census should be first. And that is a little down the line. But then you would have real numbers instead of just something that someone makes up for their own political gain or some plan they've got going. So census first, vote second, and then start drawing your lines, redrawing your lines after you know what sort of connection you have to reality.

But this just does not pass the smell test. This isn't right for our voters. It isn't right for our wards. It just isn't right, period.

Thank you. Miguel Hernandez?

Good evening, Councilmembers. My name is Miguel Hernandez. I was here about a month ago to voice support for district elections on the June ballot. I have lived in San Ana my entire life. I'm a father of two beautiful girls and a husband of a wonderful wife. I currently live in the Delhi neighborhood. Last time I was here, I said I was going to go home and tell my daughters that the council voted for democracy by voting for district elections on the ballot in June. Since then, I've had to explain that democracy and district elections in Santa Ana are under attack by Trumpism. The issue on the table has gone beyond

the question of district elections on the ballot. The question now is a much more sacred one. It's a question of Trumpism versus democracy. As a person of faith that fights for justice in our community, I pray for all of you here, all the council members, to choose to be champions of democracy and not Trumpism. As MLK said, justice delayed is justice denied. In our case, district elections delayed is democracy denied. Mayor Polito's refusal to sign the resolution for a June ballot for district elections is a threat to our democracy.

As Judge Slater said in ruling against Mayor Polito, if Mayor Polito thought the council's actions were improper, he could have filed a court challenge after signing rather than acting as judge, jury, and executioner to block the measure from the ballot. This obstruction is unacceptable, and the city needs to take steps so this never happens again. I thank Councilmember Benavides, Armiento Tinajero, and Solorio for the leadership in fighting for democracy against the tax of Trumpism. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Del Helvig, followed by Tim Rush.

Good evening. I'll be brief. The only thing that I wanted to talk about was the redrawing of the boundaries for redistricting. And one of the things that I've heard already is the boundaries could potentially be drawn such that it divides neighborhood communities. I hope when it comes time to redraw these lines, not only is it based upon facts of the 2020 census, but it also takes it into the fact that we don't want to divide up communities any more than is necessary. So I hope we maintain the neighborhoods intact with the redrawing of the lines. Thank you.

Thank you. Tim Rush, followed by Joseph Hernandez.

Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem and members of the council. I'm down here, of course, to speak against item 75A, and like many folks in town, 85, sorry.

Item 85A. Like many folks in town, I oppose the district voting. Why? Because I don't want Santa Ana to turn into Chicago. And that was one of the reasons why it was adopted a long time ago. so that we had folks from different parts of town who had to live in different parts of town to represent their ward, but still everyone was accountable citywide. So you wouldn't get people saying, oh, I have no concern about an issue that's in a part of town that I don't represent. All of our council members should represent the entire city and the entire community.

With regard to the issue of redrawing the boundaries, I would agree with the two previous speakers that yes, it should be done after an official census has been conducted by the federal government, and in a manner which brings all the stakeholders to the table. Because as the saying goes, if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. And this issue of dividing up neighborhood associations to cut their voices is a very great concern.

So I think it certainly should not be done in such a fashion that it would essentially have the, whether right or wrongly, have the perceived impact of perhaps cutting out candidates who have already thrown their hat in the ring, or it is essentially an open secret that these folks want to run and it becomes nothing but a political game. I hope that you will not lower yourselves to that. Vote against it.

Thank you, Mr. Rush.

Jose Hernandez, followed by Peter Katz, then Thomas Anthony Gordon. Irma Macias is our last speaker on this panel.

Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem, City Council Members. My name is Jose Hernandez. and I come on behalf of O'Chor, Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development. And I come to express my organizations and the community that we serve here in Santana are extreme approval of the decision by the four council members previously to support the rights of the Vietnamese community to have their representation here on this dais. People forget about what is at stake here. The issue is about this city trying to comply with the California voting rights

act. We are in violation of it. That is the issue at stake. It's not about whether you think it's not right or not. It's like I'm getting deja vu. All these issues that all these people are bringing up is the same ones that they brought in Anaheim, and they lost. They lost, and you know what else lost? Taxpayers. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions even, to try to fight what was eventually going to get passed, and would get passed if the city were to drag its feet continually. At the end of the day, it's about creating better representation. The council in Anaheim did not create fiefdoms.

They worked together very well. That's not what's going to happen here. So, you know, enough with the fear-mongering and the misrepresentation of what the issue is at stake. In Anaheim, also, there was a redrawing of the maps. That was also included in the lawsuit. And it was a community process. I would encourage a community process for the redrawing of the maps. so make sure that it's well. And I'm just really incredibly disappointed in Mayor Pulido acting like a dictator and just dragging his feet along with the special interests that obviously are backing him

because they do not want to have their power be messed with, the status quo. And of course I'm talking about the Police Officers Association, the biggest organization that continually fights the community with its projects and for their own special interests. And it's unfortunate because our taxpayer dollars pay for when they kill and maim our people. And then we get to pay for them to pay for lobby, for campaigns that then put people in this council that then vote against us even more because they want more money and less for the community projects. And it's becoming very clear what's at stake here.

And I hope that people realize that and see that out in public.

Peter Katt, Tom Gordon, and Irma Macias.

Good evening, everyone. First of all, I want to thank the mayor for saving the city $202,000 in a rush to get this thing done. The city is $17 million in a hole as it is. I still feel it took five votes to spend that sort of money, and Judge Slater was leaning in that direction, although he didn't rule on it, and I think that issue will be won on appeal. Also, $56,000 was spent to do a study to see if this hybrid system that we have in place does comply or does not comply with the State California Voting Rights Act.

And we paid for it as taxpayers. That information should be released so we can, when we go to the ballot box, make up our own mind. So this whole process can be on the set of side if that doesn't violate the law. We're looking for ways to get this city on the right track. And I also agree that why redraw the lines when you're going to have to do it two years from now? Why waste that kind of money? Redrawing it after the census makes more sense. And do it logically with open public hearings so everybody has a voice in this process. And lastly, item two is a disaster waiting to happen.

It's creating a backdoor approach to government for even more secret meetings and no thanks. And I think that also takes five votes in accordance to the city charter.

Thank you, Mr. Katz. Tom Gordon, followed by Irvin Macias.

Good evening. I'd like to thank you for coming out from closed doors at 820. So we all sat out here for four hours waiting for you guys. I appreciate the transparent, open government. Thank you very much. Secondly, the council lines have been redrawn in 2012. Some of the folks that are here may want to look into that. The city manager, the city attorney, the city clerk, the council. Specifically, two members of this council drew 27% of the Asian population. That's you folks. 27% of you were drawn out of Ward 6. Who do you think did that?

27% of the Asians were excluded from voting in Ward 6 by council members sitting up here today. So don't let them tell you that they support you. Don't let them tell you that they're on your side because they're lying to you. They're lying to you. So if you supported people you would have had real boundaries. Our neighborhoods are already divided, sir. We have multiple neighborhoods that are split across boundary lines. We talked about it. We discussed it and you laughed in our faces. I ask you to do the honest thing. Meet with the people, draw fair lines, have adequate

honest representation for us, and let's do this properly. Thank you Mr. Gordon. Irma Macias.

Good evening again ladies and gentlemen. This is an issue that is not going anywhere because everyone is here for their own purpose and agenda. And the last person you think of is your community. It's your residents that really are looking forward for a change.

When you serve yourself first, someone else is going to be hungry. And we're hungry for justice and for first service from you.

Unfortunately, politics, I don't blame it in politics. I blame it in people that are so eager to stay in a place where you are not serving your purpose anymore because you take it personal. Personal is when there is no reason to spend money that doesn't belong to you. It's the city taxes money. We need those monies for other resources for our community. while you guys are here playing games, who can pull more people, who can pull more neighborhoods for your own reasons, is insane. What are you trying to do?

Bringing what? Staying longer? What have you done?

When I ask my council member that in 12 years to show up at a meeting, how embarrassing. You put yourselves up there. You said that you were going to represent that work. If these individuals are left, it's because the person in that work was not there to represent them, to represent their interest.

So why are you doing this?

You're not serving absolutely no one by yourselves. And you want to do this again? You guys want to run again? you know in the paper it says that you're not going to run again but yes you will and as citywide elections we can have the right to attend or ask any one of you to help us if this happen you're going to have the choice to say you know what I am not your

representative thank you very much I'll bring this back to the to members of the council and then actually before we do that, Madam Clerk, if I can, I had to leave at 9 o'clock. I'm staying here for this item. I have to catch a plane. If I could please, if we can please appoint a chair and I will give the remaining items to this council. I'm going to stay for the vote and then I will leave, but I want to not be the chair right now. So if we could ask Councilman Benavidez, I'll make a motion to make Councilman Benavidez the chair. Second. We have a first and a second. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Bring it back to you, Councilman.

Thank you, Mayor Portant. I'll go ahead and then open it. Councilman Sarmiento would like to address this item.

Thank you, Councilmember. And I thank you all for your comments. I think they were all relevant. I think they're, you know, it's basically addressing an issue I think that all of us have grappled with. And I think somebody said it well. this began as a discussion and a conversation on whether or not we're going to transition from an at-large elections process to a by-district election process. That's simply what it was. And it was not to make a decision. It was simply to put it before the voters so they would decide. Obviously, I respect everybody's opinion on this. People have varied opinions.

Some people are very supportive of district elections. Some people are very supportive of at-large systems. So there's relevant arguments to be made on both sides. But what this morphed into as we went through this was thwarting the will of the council. And the council represents the voters and the residents. So when you make a decision to not sign something, and this wasn't the first time that the mayor did this. Had it been the first time, then I would have said it's a uniquely rare occasion. But this was the second time that we've dealt with this.

When we appointed, when a majority of this council appointed the city manager, his contract, the mayor refused to sign. We had to meet very quickly and have that authority shifted to the mayor pro tem. What's going to happen the next time this comes up? If there's something that the mayor or any one of us disagree with, it's completely absurd that we would not go through and do our ministerial duties. So that to me was very alarming when Judge Salter made his ruling, and again, it was a narrow ruling on just his ministerial duty.

So I think on issue one, we're simply asking both the clerk and the city attorney to give us recommendations on how we can prevent this from happening again, and whether or not there's any sanctions that can be imposed for that action. I know our code of ethics is a value-based code of ethics, and it doesn't have any punitive measures on there. But we can also consider referring this up to the FPPC, to the AG. We're just looking for some guidance from staff on this.

Number two talks about addressing this charter condition that requires the mayor to sign on this. And again, if the mayor refuses to sign, there isn't any relief given to the majority of the council that adopted something. So I think that revisiting this, putting this, again, not us deciding, but putting this before the voters for them to decide, I think we have some other charter amendments that we need to address as well. I just want to simply see if we can include this one in that batch of amendments that we need to make to the charter.

And thirdly, my understanding is redrawing these boundaries is, you know, we have to think about doing that now. Because as I heard many of my colleagues who did not support district elections, it was because it was being done too quickly. Well, now we have a little bit of time. We can go out and we can discuss it with the community. There was some urgency because we did want to get it before the voters in June. If we go now to November, we do have some time. but that process to redraw those boundaries my understanding is madam clerk is that we do need

to start that process quickly so that's the basis of this um of this motion and this agenda item and i simply wanted to put it before the um before my colleagues tonight so we can have a further discussion on this with staff recommendation thank you mayor uh thank you uh councilman

Thank you, Councilmember Benavides. I know the mayor's not here, and I'm not an expert in all this, but I will say his thinking was that this was probably an illegal vote or it wasn't done properly because there's questionable Brown Act violations regarding that, so I'm looking for the lawsuit right now, but I'm sure you all received it. It's in the attachment. So, I mean, we're talking about this. It's in litigation. So let's say he wins. Are you guys going to apologize to him? Because that might happen.

No, he's not.

I just wanted to bring that up. We're talking about something that's in court. But anyway, that's my comment.

Councilman Tinajero.

Real simple. Real simple. It's real basic. This council took a vote. We sought legal counsel to give us guidance on funding.

She had given us guidance based upon precedent, which is what our system works through. More importantly is this. I heard one of the speakers come up and talk about that they didn't want us to be like Chicago. I say this move made it look like we were Chicago. Because when one person can stop democracy in a city, that has a chilling effect.

And that's exactly what happened. So real simple. What happened here was a vote was taken. The vote prevailed. For those individuals who say that he shouldn't have done that, let me tell you what he should have done. This was the proper process. The proper process, and the judge even stated it, and I stated it before they even went to court, is that he should have gone and filed a complaint with the courts. if you don't agree with it you still have a responsibility to sign and then you have courts that you can go to to fight this but he didn't do that and i just know some of the speakers i've

known you for a long time because i've been here for a while man if i had done that to something that you wanted you would have burned this place down but it's just interesting because it's not something you want that it's okay to take away democracy from the people of santa ana i always crack up when people come up and they say, well, everybody, many people. Well, how do you know? Did you conduct a study? You know how we would have known if we had had an election? And that's the proper way to go. What are you afraid of? If you don't like ward elections, fine. Create your

case, run your campaign, and let the voters decide. At the end of the day, what you have done and what this mayor has done is stop democracy in Santa Ana. And that's what we, you can smokescreen all you want at the end of the day that is what occurred what we want to do madam clerk madam city attorney mr city manager is we want to make sure that that does that disgrace does not happen again you know what i will apologize to the mayor if he wins but he's not going to win because what he did was 100 wrong and so we need to fix this today and we need to take this forward

and let the voters decide. Because let me tell you, the Vietnamese population is asking for inclusion. How long is it going to take before we give them that inclusion? What's interesting to me is I saw a lot of minority speakers come up, and they were all, the majority of the minority speakers that came up were speaking about inclusion. And what was interesting is Latino voters, one of the things that may happen is you may lose a Latino seat. But it didn't matter to us, because what we want is every resident in our community to have a voice. Plain and simple. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Solow.

Yes, I agree with what much of my colleagues have said. And I know different folks have heard different things or believe different things. You know, I traditionally have not been supportive of going down this route, but you know I do believe in the California Voting Rights Act and served in the legislature and so I know what an important piece of law that that is that all these communities that are implementing this have been doing it in a way that has enfranchised and involved more communities in the voting process and selecting not necessarily somebody of their own race because that's not what

the law says but somebody of their preference and so last summer you know we had some Asian Americans saying they felt disenfranchised with our at large voting system we did the right thing did our research we hired a demographer and we do need a research by the way when we can release some of those results because I think that's a good point but we hired a demographer we did a legal assessment, a data assessment, and largely believe that we are disenfranchising Asian American voters on the West End. And so because of that, we do need to start a process for going to ward-based elections.

Before, honestly, we got those results so late, and then there was the county deadlines that we really didn't have the kind of robust discussion we should have had. but now we're here and we do have more time which is good in particular for the ward boundary process i know there's a requirement of two public hearings but i hope that we do additional outreach including going to to comlink for example in in other groups in addition to looking at ethnicity i also when we look at communities of interest i want to make sure we look at our neighborhood boundaries and not divide up neighborhood boundaries. I do view that those

are cohesive communities of interest and I don't want to see them divided. I know that some are concerned, for example, that the council wants to divide North of 17th into three or four different wards and I'll let you know that's not my intention and for sure it's not my intention to divide up any neighborhoods in that ward or any others. So I'm supportive of this action. you know doing the right thing sometimes takes a little bit of time and here you know we believed in it for the right reasons through the California Voting Rights Act and you know I'm still dedicated

to stay on that course. Thank you. Councilman Benavides. Thank you Councilman Benavides.

So first time around when this came about I was not supportive because it was very rushed and And, you know, the devil's always in the details. And obviously it didn't move forward. But one of the reasons why, you know, we received a letter, there's a current council member on this diet that had an intern that filed this potential, you know, California Voting Rights Act based on city attorney opinion, but it wasn't based on, you know, that letter, but information was provided to a council member. and then a letter then was presented to us. One, that's wrong on all levels.

Number two, I will say that Mayor Polito does have a responsibility as the mayor to sign documents and I have said in the past that when he chose not to sign the city manager, that he was not doing his duty as a mayor. And he is wrong. He could have taken other course of action and gone to the court himself So I will agree to what he did was definitely wrong and violated the charter and his really duties.

And so I would implore our mayor in the future to fulfill his obligation as the chair and mayor of this city. So I want to put that on record. Number two, that as we talk about wanting to move towards district elections and ward boundaries, I made it very clear that I would not support district elections if we do not look at the 19 different methods. The current method that is being proposed, that was proposed in June, I will not support.

So if my colleagues are not willing to do their homework and do the research to make sure that if we're going down this path, I cannot move forward because I don't believe the current system will work in district elections. I want to make that very clear. The second thing I want to make very clear is that as we look at moving towards district elections, one of the issues that we've always faced in this city is that when a council member chooses to run, there are times where they don't even live in that ward. But they'll go and rent an apartment 30 days prior.

And then the record, the charter is silent if you actually have to remain in that ward. So we got to make that charter amendment and we also have to put some enforcement that you can go to jail because let me tell you, state legislators and other council members across this state have done this and have ended up incarcerated. So if you really want to do the right thing, you're going to live in that ward and represent those people. You're not going to rent an apartment for 30 days. And then when you get elected, you figure out no one.

There's nothing that we have laws here in place that you just can get away with. So I want to make that very clear. If you want my support, you're going to make that amendment to the charter. The next thing that I'm going to ask for is that when we look at even looking at changing the boundaries, and the reason if you do move to district elections, you would actually have to change the boundaries because the Asian community is split in three different districts.

So how can you do district elections and give fair representation to the Vietnamese community if you don't change the boundaries? Because currently now they are split between three districts. And so I do agree that if we want fair representation, that you need to do the boundary changes, but you could only do those boundary changes. You're not going to do an RFP process and hire someone that is political to get what you want.

I will support moving forward with a company like Esri who has a platform already that has open maps available with the same information that the city council would have, the community would have as well. It would be open and transparent. That's the second thing I would require. The other thing I would ask our city attorney is that is it typical for us to do boundary changes before a census?

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

My understanding is that your charter specifies that you're required to review your boundaries after a census occurs. That's according to the charter. I'm not aware of any of historical actions. I've only been here six years, so not been here enough time to know historically whether you've ever done it. My understanding is that you have done the review every 10 years as required by the charter.

Okay, so when we did the amendment in 2012, obviously the census already took place in 2010, so we were able to make that change. But now the next census is not to 2020, and so we're right in the middle. And in the charter, it states that you can't do that. And so are we going to be violating the charter by doing these boundary changes?

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

May, may, may, may the charter doesn't say you can't do it. What the charter says is that you shall review it after the census. So there's no prohibition in the charter, just so that you know. But the, but the charter does say that you shall take a review after the census.

Like we shall need five votes to, to change the boundary elections.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

Yes. Now that is, that is a shall.

Yes. I have never been just favorable of just census data to do boundary changes because I believe that voter data is extremely important to put into this boundary changes. And more importantly as well is that you have future growth and we never consider that. So we have to wait 10 years. Well, we already know that we have future growth because we're mandated by state whether arena to allocate for future growth. and but we never even contemplate to even thinking what that future growth is going to be into those boundary changes because we know that they're going to change for example we have eight

to ten projects currently now where there's a hundred to two hundred you know of developments come in of apartments and so you're going to have an impact and more increase in population so you would think that you would also include the future growth of our community so i would implore my colleagues that not only you include census data, but you include voter data, and you also include future growth projections. And we already have that. And if you don't have it here, you can definitely get it at SCAG because they put that for every city and every region in

Southern California. This is how we really conduct our business throughout the city is dependent on our future growth and how we tie our economy as well. And then finally, you know, one of the issues that I had as well during this process was these funds and I always talk about a process and for whatever reason when a process works for someone and doesn't work for another and when we don't have one it's kind of silent we set precedent and the issue of this liability in general fund and I've been very patient with my staff and I've asked and I haven't brought the 85a

forward because I've been waiting for my city staff to bring an item forward because these are funds that should not be used for the purposes that we have and I have been in conflict with my prior city manager Mr. Cavazos when he was using these funds and and constantly I would say you cannot do that and of course I would just get ignored and then here again because he set precedent this council obviously said hey if he set precedent then what I can't do it so I'm asking my colleagues that moving forward that we need to put a policy in place that these are not funds

that we can just use at our beck and call it's wrong on so many levels and so those are my comments right now on these items i don't know how it's going to move forward but i just want it to be very you know straightforward with with the public wanting to be straightforward with my colleagues and just to conclude is that if we are going to move towards this process that we have the community engagement and that we're making sure that we're actually being genuine about including the community, right? It's not just about doing two hearings or three hearings or going to Comlink.

It's about making sure that we have a transparent and open process and that everyone is included in the process. Everyone understands the process. That's what I expect and I would hope that my colleagues would respect that and support moving in that direction. So I think we have a new

member to the ad hoc so if you don't mind mayor pro tem maybe what we do is we have that discussion where it sounds like you have a lot of good ideas that you can share and i think it'd be a a good benefit to the ad hoc as they go forward that's a good good point thank you mayor pro

temp for your comments and uh councilman sarmento uh i think we're going to lose one one member uh here i have a few comments and then uh perhaps a motion i don't know we have a specific motion yet on the floor. And then I don't know if it's Councilman Zinahiro coming back. So I want to thank everybody for their comments, both members of the public who came and addressed us and members of the council. A couple questions I do have for staff, and ultimately, before I go to that, some of my colleagues did address why we're even having this discussion, this conversation here.

We already had this similar conversation around district elections. some time back, in fact, over about a year, year and a half ago, and then more recently at a time when the council did vote to have district elections be placed on the ballot in June, in response to try to address issues of concern around the California Voting Rights Act. And ultimately what that represented is that there are certain members of the community that are being disenfranchised

and not being allowed the ability to elect a representative of their choice. So it's interesting, one of the members of the public came and addressed us and said that they're interested in making sure that we don't divide neighborhood associations because we don't want to cut their voices, but yet is opposed to district elections and is opposed to ward reboundaries that would actually allow for a certain segment of the community to have a greater voice so that there seems to be a contradiction there however the question one of the questions that i do have uh for uh the clerk of the council my understanding is that when ward

boundaries are being considered that there are actual uh uh communities of interest that you know if you can speak to the process uh which as i understand it would actually uh eliminate that idea or concept that neighborhood associations would be divided if they are a true community.

Okay. Thank you, Councilmember and members of the public. The elections code that actually discusses district elections requires actually five public hearings. So this is five public hearings, three that are required under the elections code and two that are required in our charter and as far as the elections code it does require that pre pre drawing of maps to public hearings be held on that to obtain the elements that the community wants as far as districts the community of interest would be one what

is important to the community is it parks is it community centers what's important to the community and the demographer would have to listen to those comments in order

for them to start drafting those maps. Thank you. I knew that there was some consideration that needed to be taken in when boundaries were to be listed or boundaries were to be drawn and considered. I have a few other comments but at this point I think most of the points have been addressed. The one question, additional question that I do have, this one is of the city attorney, that the first item here is implications and options to address the mayor's refusal to sign resolutions. Clearly the court, the judge, this is not just an opinion, but the judge actually

gave an order to the mayor and was very clear in communicating that the mayor violated his ministerial duty as mayor he in essence abandoned his responsibilities turned his back on on the community didn't fulfill that one of the my colleagues referenced the the code of ethics that the currently that the city has adopted however currently I don't know that there is an actual options to to address

a violation such as this, what are options? Is censure an option? What could we take to at least send a very clear and direct message to reiterate what the court has indicated as far as the mayor's violation?

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

And Council Member Benavidez, I do want to actually summarize that the ethics committee of the council has for some time now, I'd say maybe a little over two years, been addressing the ethics code and has discussed possible enforcement provisions of your value-based ethics code. There's also been conversations about turning that into a different type of code. So there are a lot of good ideas that were fleshed out through that process that ranged from censure to referral to other law enforcement agencies, as well as some other options.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

even without that in your ethics code the city council always has the discretion to adopt a resolution of censure when they feel that any member of their council has acted inappropriately or against the values as stated in that ethics code or for any other reason if someone's violated the law for example if the council desired to do that they would need to give direction to staff to prepare the necessary documents and bring them back to you.

Thank you. Then I do want to ask another follow-up question, then I'll come back with a motion. There has been this misconception idea, even one of the speakers mentioned it tonight, that going to district elections would somehow reset term limits

and would make it so that council members like myself who are termed out would be able to run once again for our seat. Can you address that?

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

I've looked at that issue, and the ballot analysis that I prepared that would have been printed in your ballot materials if your election had gone forward stated unequivocally that the consideration of the bi-district election would in no way impact the term limits of the existing council members, that the measure was not intended to do so, and in my opinion would not result in any changes to the term limits. And I stated that in writing. It would have been printed in the ballot materials.

And you did before us here. And thank you for clarifying once again. There's clearly falsehoods that were being spread both by some of those that spoke here tonight by the mayor himself.

And so at this point, what I'd like to do is ask my colleagues to consider a place of motion for us for consideration. One is to address the first item, to request that staff draft a resolution and censure of the mayor for his refusal to sign, as is supported by the decision of the courts.

And second would be to go ahead and move forward with the other items. That was the only clarifying item that I wanted to place for the motion is the first item with regard to that resolution, the others to move forward with the items as described here for November 2018 election, and proceeding with the ward rebounders. That's my motion, if there's a second. Second. Those in favor? Aye.

Excuse me. I have a question. Are we just doing the item one as is, which is, I don't know, is the city attorney and staff going to come back to us on implications and options to address the resolution?

We can do, so the motion that I placed right now in order to be able to direct action, one of the options that I heard was that the council can request that a resolution and censure be drafted. So that's what my motion was or is, along with the other items, two and three.

I thought the ethics committee already directed a letter to be done. So if it's that, I'm not sure that it's necessary here.

So there was a letter directed from the committee unanimously sent to the mayor highlighting his violation of the charter by failing to sign. So this was not really to give any specific direction, but to give the city attorney and the clerk staff to come back to us and tell us what can we do. And I think one of the options that the city attorney just mentioned was doing a resolution of censure. Short of that, I don't think the Code of Ethics has anything in it because it hasn't been amended to include any punitive measures on it. So to the extent that is something, whether it can be referred out,

I just simply was seeking some guidance from staff to be able to present some options to the council, and it doesn't have to be.

And on that note, I mean, I think even though that aspect of the legal situation has been resolved, that there is a ministerial duty to sign resolutions like this, maybe through the court process or through staff, that legal decision needs to be written up and presented to the mayor and the council so that that decision by the judge is memorialized. I mean, that's another missing piece as well.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

I guess so I can clarify, do you mean that if we came back with an RFCA with the options, and one of those options was the resolution of censure, you'd want us to attach the transcript where the judge verbatim said that the mayor had a duty to sign and could not operate at all three levels of government. In other words, he couldn't be the legislature and the judge and the jury and that problem. Is that what you're referring to? You'd like me to attach the transcript so that the council can all see it and the public could see that?

I guess I just feel like this issue has played out and I think the judge has been and the media has been very clear that the mayor should have signed that resolution but what has not occurred really just kind of memorializing that action by the judge so that this body and future bodies knows that the Charter says what it says what it says and you know means what it says.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

Yeah I think the only thing I would like to point out just to make sure that we of a complete conversation is that while it has played out at the trial court level, in fact our mayor has not accepted that as the final word on it. He has decided to file an appeal and notwithstanding that language that was entered into by the court. So I don't know how you want to address that issue, but I'd be happy to bring it all back to you in a document attached to the RCA. Maybe it all gets brought back.

I mean the other piece that makes me feel a little bit uncomfortable, I know there's been other colleagues, including my colleague to the right, Councilmember Villegas, that in the past he's been wanting to see how he can get staff to provide recommendations on enforcement or follow-up on ethics enforcement, and that hasn't occurred. so I don't want us to be selective either and so some of this kind of gets back to you know that committee and staff finalizing what the options are so if I

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

just might because I like to have complete and you know accurate information it is it is my opinion that staff has not failed to bring options and recommendations to the ethics committee and right but they just haven't made it to this full body yes at this yes but my understanding that's because the members of the ethics committee have for one reason or another wanted to revisit those issues. So I know that the last action that was taken is that staff's, I believe, going to consolidate everything we need to ask when that might come before you.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

But just so you know, we've brought back enforcement options at least four times, four different versions of proposed enforcement actions, which I think we're going to present to the full council and then let the full council decide.

Right. Well, definitely items number two and three as is I'm willing to support. Just on item one, I'm unclear really on what we're doing or having asked Stu. Maybe this idea of staff preparing some options might be a way to go. I just am unclear.

I'll go ahead then, and I hear what my colleagues are referencing with regard to wanting to look at other comprehensive options. So I'll modify, I'll take that as a friendly amendment, if you will, to modify the motion specific to item one, which is to request staff to come back with options and items two and three i think are uh stand as a as written uh so i think we have a motion and a second i'll uh call a question those in favor aye aye aye any opposed when opposed uh motion uh carries in uh is it four one

and with that we'll move on back to the business calendar item 55A I think that the rest of the items will go fairly quickly and we'll go ahead I don't have any fairly quickly and I think one of the items will address some of the the items a bit later on the agenda so 55 a so moved second motion a second does in favor aye aye any opposed extensions motion carries item 55b we do have a few members of the council a few

members of the public that are interested in addressing this item Arnulfo Montero followed by Mayra Tapia and then we have Brianna Morales.

Distinguidos Miembros. Yes, please.

of elections for district resident of urban ranch for more than 50 years working in agriculture for the company urban a which I am very grateful for giving me respect for many years of work and professional training of my family point and aparte

the citizens of Santana have lost the right to vote in the vote or in favor of elections for district due to the fact that the Mr. Miguel Pulido, alcalde, has found a way to address a democratic process a su conveniencia. Esto lo convierte en abuso de poder, falta de respeto para los votantes y crimen a la democracia. Solo espero

que Dios lo ilumine para que tome decisiones justas y bendiga a su familia. Muchas gracias.

Distinguished members of the City Council, my name is Anulfo Montero, and I'm in favor of the district award elections. I'm a resident of Irvine Ranch for more than 50 years. I've been working in agriculture for Irvine Company, and I'm very thankful for that. And for bringing the respect for many years of hard work and professional ethics in my family. And next item, next point is that the residents of the city of Santa Ana have lost the right to vote in favor or against district elections due to the mayor's, Mayor Miguel Pulido's decision,

that he found a way to delay the process, the democratic process, to his convenience. And with this, abuse of power, lack of respect for the electorate, and a crime towards democracy. I just hope that God will illuminate him to make decisions and right decisions and to bless his family. Thank you very much. Gracias, señor. Thank you. Mayra Tapia.

Followed by Brianna Morales.

Followed by Teresa Lee.

After Ms. Lee, we have Jorge Rodriguez.

Hội đồng thành phố Santa Ana Đồng ý Bầu cho sự thay đổi Hệ thống bầu cử Chiến thắng này sau đó Đã bị trở thành Chiến thắng rộng Khi mà thị trường Thành phố Từ chối ký những hồ sơ Tôi chắc chắn là thị trường U Lido Có lý do riêng Cho hành động của ông ấy

State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State State

all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all Vì tôi vừa mới chứng kiến

Sự trật đường rời của đường lối Dân chủ do những hành động Của một và một hai vài cá nhân Điều đó có thể bảo đảm là điều Điều đó sẽ không sẻ ra Không tại diện Tôi xin được nhắc lại câu nói all all all all all all all all all

all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all

all all all all all

all all all I have answered that if you don't move, you don't move, you don't move, you don't move. I can ask you in the next year of 2018 or the next year of 2018. I believe that when the problem is being brought out, I will ask you why I am waiting for the next year. and the public's actions of the government is a broad and broad and broad. Thank you.

I'm assuming you'll be translating? Yeah, I'll be reading her speech in English. Is that right? If you can do it as concisely as possible as time has expired. Good evening. Thank you for making time for me. My name is Theresa Lee and I've been asking the city of Santana to reform its election system, a movement that has been met with hollow victories. Do you mind speaking a bit closer to the mic? Sorry. Thank you. First was when City Council voted in favor of election reforms, only to have Mayor Pellito refuse to sign the appropriate documents. The court system has ruled his actions to be outside the limits of his authority

and has requested his signature. However, this was another empty victory, because now the entire process has been restarted. This concerns me because I have just witnessed the derailment and delay of the democratic process due to the action of one individual. What assurance do I have that this will not happen again and again? Please place the issue of election reform onto the ballot as soon as you can. Why the push? Because without push, we're stagnant. Why the rush? Because when it comes to correcting an injustice, the better question is why wait? Thank you very much.

Jorge Rodriguez, followed by Josie Hernandez.

Good evening, my name is Jorge Rodríguez, I am a member and leader of OCO. I just want to tell you that I am supporting the elections for district that come in November. And also I want to know this point, when the mayor does not comply with his obligation, se le dé la responsabilidad a otro concejal en su lugar para que no se cometa la otra irregularidad como la que se cometieron en marzo porque lo que es lo que es lo que yo creo que ninguno de ustedes

los que están aquí tienen el derecho de obstruir lo que el pueblo pide gracias

Good evening. My name is Jorge Rodriguez, and I'm here, a member of OCO. And I want to let you know that I do support district elections that are coming up in November. And I want to let you know that the mayor does not have that obligation to sign. when the mayor does not fulfill his obligations you need to have a process to allow another council member to take over that over those obligations not not one of you not a single one of you has the right to obstruct the people what the people want thank you final speaker on this item Jose Hernandez okay

he spoke on a previous item so he's just giving me the signal that he's no longer just speaking on this specific item I'll bring it back to council move the item second of motion the second does in favor aye aye any opposed abstentions motion carries move on to item 65 65 a yeah that's um the council

member I asked to bring this item forward it's a Senate bill 895 from Janet Nguyen. And it's regarding the Vietnamese curriculum. If you consider for schools, there's a lot of brave men and women, Vietnamese, who fought alongside the American service members during the Vietnam War, and their story needs to be told, so I'm asking my colleagues for a support letter to have this go up to Sacramento when they vote on it, since we have a very large Vietnamese community here. in Santa Ana and their story needs to be told. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Councilman, any other?

And I move the item.

We have motion, any other members of the council wish to speak or address the item? I just need to know, trying to look at it right now to see what is the curriculum. In other words, is it a piece of social studies? Yeah, social studies.

They're just trying to relay the refugee experience in our schools, their side, their stories, their hardships during the Vietnam era.

I'll second it if somebody hasn't already seconded. Okay, there's a motion by Councilman Villegas, seconded by Councilman Tinajero. Those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Abstentions? motion carries unanimously we move now to item did we ever address dress 75 B I don't believe that we have addressed 75 B so we'll address that at this time it's time for public hearing to consider a resolution approving a relocation plan for Warner Avenue phase one improvements between Main Street and Oak Street planning staff is available for presentation and to answer any questions

Do we have any members of the public wishing to speak on this matter? I don't show any cards here.

I have not received any cards.

Okay. And at this point, then, I'll close the public hearing. And has the city clerk's office received any written communications regarding this matter that has not yet been distributed to council?

I have not.

Thank you. Then I'll bring this back to council. Again, staff is ready with a presentation. Council wishes to see that. Are we moving this? We're taking action on this tonight? So there is a... So I'm going to make a motion to approve. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. I do have a question for staff with regard to this item. As I was looking through the prepared report, there was... There's a breakdown of the different addresses and number of residents per housing unit.

And so my question is whether the number of tenants or residents addresses the relocation award. If I remember correctly from previous such relocation plans, I believe it does, some of the plans, some of the numbers seem rather low. as far as number of tenants in some cases I think there's one two individuals I guess three and so in some cases it seems rather low and I'm just wondering whether there's an undercount and again ultimately is that is there an

implication to the relocation award that the housing unit receives the the information provided is a result of interviews that were conducted by the consultants that prepared the relocation plan so when they have the ability to speak with the tenants they get this information directly from them so it is direct information where it says unknown in some cases some tenants or if they're the property owner that is there that they refuse that interview then they can't really get that detailed information but in general if it says that's the number of occupants that's because what the folks that are there

actually told them okay in the cases where there was an unknown well going back to my the initial question does the tenancy the number of residents in the unit impact the relocation award it's not just the number of tenants yes that does impact how much is is offered because if it's say a family the number of bedrooms is determined determines certain benefits that they receive on the relocation side but you might also have even if you have two or three tenants they might not be moving together so they would receive completely separate

benefits or even you have multiple families in a single house that each of those families could potentially receive different benefits to be relocated to different locations so those interviews and the figures here that'll determine what what benefits they'll receive and they receive a notice of eligibility letter from the city based on these interviews and what benefits they are eligible based on the interview and the counts that they get. In the case where there is an unknown, what is the next step? There will be continued outreach to those folks until we can actually ascertain who those folks are.

So my main interest here is just to ensure, and we've addressed in the past, we have had residents come forward that have indicated that they didn't feel that they were received the best the most thorough information or they didn't feel like they were they were addressed in that in the best most courteous informative manner we did address that before it's the same consultant here that we're using so I'm my assumption is that we have a staff has addressed that with the consultant that they're doing everything to ultimately they're representing us represent representing

the city so I just want to reiterate that and that message to the to the consultant and my reason for asking about the the tendency and the numbers to want to ensure that we're doing right by the residents that are there in some cases there may be especially in just the the current atmosphere politically, federal immigration, the issues and all, I just want to ensure that it's very clear that we're here to be able to do a thorough process, be courteous, do right by the tenants there, that we're not

undercounting at the end of the day and then not providing the adequate relocation

needed by the families that are there. Absolutely. The notice of eligibility letter details to each each tenant or each family or group of tenants that the benefits that they may receive they can always reach back to us and update that information I'm assuming it's issued bilingual at least in Spanish if not multilingual the information that they received that the letter the letter no but we have bilingual folks that are interfacing with them out in the field so they're portraying that information correctly. Okay. Is there a way to translate that letter and get it out there to them? It can be, yes, definitely. Okay.

If we can follow up with that, again, just want to make sure that we do right by residents of the city that are being impacted by this widening of the street on Warner and the relocation. We do have a motion to second if there are no other members of the-Make a motion to approve. We do have a motion to second. Those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries unanimously. At this point, we'll move to item 75C, which has already been addressed. Now we'll move to item 85B. I'll bring it back to Councilman Settler-Yegas.

Thank you, Councilmember Benavides.

Oh, you're right. We do have one speaker on that item, Debbie McEwen.

I just believe that with the ethics and that specific Brown Act violation, just this one that we're speaking of, I think it's kind of important. And with all that is going on, and with everyone so quick to speak poorly of, name call, berate the mayor, talk about what a horrendous act that he committed. And while you're doing that, you are in fact violating the Brown Act.

and thereby violating the code of ethics. It's circular, it's endless, it keeps going, but everybody needs to step back and get a handle on this because this is not working for the community, it's not working for the residents, it's just not working for us. I think if we spent a little less time squabbling and trying to hamstring the mayor at every turn and spend a little more time on our governance and our planning

and some of the critical items that came up here today, it would just certainly serve our community better. I heard some of the other speakers talking about they were being robbed of their rights, everything. Nothing was going their way. they're extremely unhappy with it. Well, so are the rest of us. On the complete opposite side of the coin, all of this squabbling and infighting needs to stop. Certainly the serial meetings need to stop. All of that needs to change, and I hope that happens much sooner rather than later.

I'll bring it back now to Councilman Villegas.

Thank you, Council Member Benavides. So I asked to bring this item forward because I had concerns of an alleged Brown Act violation may have occurred regarding the serial meeting that took place Thursday, March 8, 2018.

And, you know, everyone has it on their phone. I know the clerk was simply notifying us. You know, she was on vacation, as a matter of fact, out of state with her family. but she was notifying us about the mayor's inaction regarding that the signature but our clerk and I want to say for the record she's just the messenger on this so no one should be pointing the finger at her saying that you know it's her fault or you know blame putting blame on her and I want to make sure that that's that's out there because no one

I don't have to twist anyone's arm to write or type on the phone in that meeting. And all the members here have been in politics for well over ten years and we should know better.

So, you know, government code, I looked at the Brown Act, and for the public, government code, which is the California Code 54952.2B1, says the majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind directly or through intermediary areas, excuse me, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject the district manager, jurisdiction of the legislative body. So I know sometimes we get the text messages and it's about who's available for the meeting. It's a schedule thing, no one's talking about any items.

But on this thread, there was some direction given, there was some discussion. There was even a, to make sure that everyone was in agreement. And so on March 28th, we have the legislative ethics transparency committee where Sarmiento is the chair, council member Sarmiento. Item number four talks about reporting Brown Act violations. And so on there it says that the Orange County District Attorney's Office Special Prosecution Unit is one of those places where you can report the violation or alleged violation.

The grand jury also authorized under AB1945 or the Attorney General's office. So I really believe that a Brown Act violation started or happened because the day that everyone talked about having the meeting and I saw pictures. I wasn't here, but I saw pictures the public was all here except the council members. And that's very, very embarrassing.

So, and now I receive text messages and it says there, do not reply in big bold letters. You know, I get it. Everyone replies separately. You know, email your response. Here's some information. And you know, I understand we're all trying to look out, but everyone needs to be responsible. So you say the mayor has a duty to sign. Well, you have a duty to follow the Brown Act. I understand mistakes happen. I'm not making excuses, but if you fail, you own it, you fix it, and then you move on.

Now, I know that if I ask for a motion right here to refer this to the DA's office, I'm probably not even going to get a second.

So, what I'm going to do is I'm just giving notice right now by myself as a private person. Listen, I will be sending this for review to the Orange County District Attorney's Office Special Prosecution Unit, so they can look at it and they can determine if a Brown Act violation happened or not, because that's what happened. That's what responsible people do, so be it. If I get in trouble because I'm on that thread and I didn't ask to get off of it, then so be it. But we got to hold ourselves accountable.

We're in a very high position here. your elected official, you need to show integrity. Period. Or you don't deserve that title where it says honorable on it. That's all I got to say. Those are my comments. Thank you, Councilman.

Councilman Tinajero.

I think it goes back to, and the Councilmember has a right to do whatever he chooses to do and feels is right. I would also ask that you, since you're going to go that route, that you also make a report based upon the mayor when he violated the Brown Act, and it was on the Voice of OC on tape when he was sharing information that was coming out of our closed session. So I think if we want to be consistent, let's do it. I wasn't here during that time, so I'll leave that up to you. I'll leave that up to you. Okay, I'll do that then. If you do that, I'll do this too, and that'll be good.

Next, one of the things that the public needs to understand here, I do believe that staff probably should have handled this differently. There is no way that all, and I don't understand why we're still doing this, why all council members are being text messaged all at once. It only opens the door for a possible mishap. All the council members were notified in one text message that the mayor in the 12th hour was going to abdicate his role as mayor and stop democracy from happening in the city of Santa Ana.

We had passed a resolution to take something to the voters so that they could vote on it. The mayor was slick. I have to give him credit. He's been around a long time. He knows how to play this game and he does it very well. He was slick and I didn't think he would do that. I thought as mayor he would go ahead and do his job. But he chose not to. Even though he knew, and I'm sure others had told him, that if you don't like the vote or you disagree with the vote or you don't think the vote is legal, you still sign because that's your job as mayor. That's the oath you have taken on.

when you take your oath, you take on the responsibilities. But it's fascinating to me how some people are unwilling to hold him accountable for that. And the judge even said, if you had a problem, you should have come to court and allowed me to rule on it, and then I would have ruled. But you see, the judge would have probably ruled that he had to sign and that this was legal. But he knew that he had an ace, and the ace was he didn't have to sign this, and then we would be stuck trying to figure out what to do. Because there was also a deadline pending. And so we received a text message from the clerk.

I was appalled. I made a comment in that text message. And I said, you know, let's let our Mayor Pro Tem sign it because she's not as petty as the Mayor. I find it fascinating how some people are so quick to say let's stop talking about the mayor. Do you know that our mayor has had more FPPC violations than anyone on this council combined? In the previous three councils combined? Does that bother anybody that's coming up here to defend the mayor?

Now it doesn't surprise me that he would do something like this. So as we sit here and pound our chest to talk about a Brown Act violation, that quite frankly, I still think that we should change that process, Madam Clerk, of text messaging everyone at once. We should probably split it into groups of twos and threes so that this doesn't happen again. But I can tell you this, to break the law, you also have to do it with the motive to have a secret meeting. There was no motive to have a secret meeting on that day.

It was people that were just shocked, wanted to know what they needed to do. In fact, we voted on 55B that completely, we've just basically did away with that vote. Am I wrong, Madam City Attorney? Can you explain what 55B does?

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

Yes, well, the action that you took tonight on item 55B was a complete rescission of the resolutions. As I recall, the subject of the text messages that I saw had to do with the scheduling of a meeting, and that was the purpose and what might be discussed at that meeting. And so, in my opinion, you ultimately did not have that meeting, so the discussion that occurred was not consummated. In other words, it didn't occur.

Correct.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

Because if the allegation against the council members is that you violated the Brown Act because you had a discussion as to when you were going to have a meeting, you would have violated the Brown Act if you had had that meeting. But moreover, and I think what's really most important, is you always have to look at the details. And if you look at the details of the text messages, even if one would argue that there was a consensus, Council Member 1 said, let's do this. Council Member 2 said, I'm good. And Council Member 3 said, I concurred. There was never a Council Member 4 that reached a consensus on that.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

So while there might have been people who chimed into a conversation, only three members of the Council did that. I'm not saying that it was good practice, and it's because I'm very conservative, as you know, when I give Brown Act opinions. and that was one of the reasons why I had recommended that we not hold the meeting. If you go back and actually look at the text messages, there was not a concurrence of four council members on a single topic of discussion.

Thank you. Ella, I don't mean to interrupt. I was just going to question. But intent is not an element of that or a violation in that section. So it doesn't matter if intent or not.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

It does. Actually, if you look at the Brown Act.

I don't see it on there. That's why.

Sonia R. CarvalhoItem —

Well, the reason we don't see often prosecution under the Brown Act by a district attorney is because intent is an element to bring a criminal cause of action under the Brown Act. So you have to have a meeting with the intent to deprive the public of the information that you're discussing. So the Brown Act violations that occur, or those that are noted in reported cases, are when four members of a seven-member council get together and make a decision, come to a council meeting, and vote on something and deprive the public of what their discussion was about. And that's a really important distinction in the case law.

Thank you. Madam City Attorney.

I want to thank the City Attorney for clarifying that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam City Attorney, and I'll still be referring it over there for a clarification.

Any other comments?

I do think it's really interesting that this, what was discussed, that this alleged violation, it's by some of the speakers, by the councilmen who brought it forth, is being made to seem like some type of major law collusion, some type of, you know, illegality by council, when ultimately we received an email or text indicating us that the mayor was not going to sign. He was going to again violate his duty and obligation as mayor. And so at that point, knowing that it was a very limited time,

time, we were within hours of the deadline of having that document signed and submitted, the conversation was, okay, what are our options? Can we call a special meeting? That was one of my questions. What are our options? Can we have somebody else sign? So that was the extent of it, making it sound like it was something significant. And I appreciate the comments and clarification by the city attorney where, and I know you have some background in this in that, I believe you do trainings up and down the state with regard to the Brown Act and ultimately from what I understand which is very interesting is that I just go back to

and I've been I've been scratching my head and and and wondering what ultimately is is making it that the mayor is so passionate about this issue and it's just so working so so hard and from what information I've been that's been shared with me that it seems that his his main concern is a specific interest a specific interest to be able to have the support that he needs politically to be able to run a campaign and be re-elected this this November and specific support that it needs is the police unions I understand there was indication that the police union was not going to be supporting the

mayor he wanted to make sure to have that that support they're adamantly opposed to district elections he had to take this up in order to be able to garner that that level of support and we have now the situation that we're facing where he's opted to sign the way of democracy and we were having to deal with these issues so that that really is at the at the heart of it all but yet some text messages are being made to sound like they're a major issue of violation but with that I don't think we had a motion or second on this item so

we're gonna go ahead and move on to work-study session mr. chair if I may

see you man given that the hour is late and also we've lost three of our council members I would like to continue this item it was just good idea and it's

not time-sensitive perfect so we'll go ahead and move on then to city manager or comments. City Manager, if you have any comments. Yes, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to announce that Dia de los Ninos is occurring this Saturday, April 21st, from 10.30 to 2 p.m. at the Santa Ana Public Library in Plaza of the Sun. Dia de los Ninos is an event that celebrates the importance of children, families, literacy, and cultures. The Parks and Rec Department has held this event for the past 10 years and there will be free giveaways, music, appearances by various authors, a bungee trampoline, rock climbing wall, and so much more. So I just wanted to invite the community out to that. I also wanted to report to you that we held a household hazardous waste event on March 17th.

We had 1,097 residents participate, making this year's event the most successful event ever. And this is an event that occurs every other year, and it's an opportunity for the public to come out and get rid of pesticides, cleaning and automotive products, e-waste, universal waste, and a variety of other wastes that are dropped off. This event took place at Saddleback High School. And last but not least, I wanted to report that the water and sewer website is up and running. Public Works has just created a new webpage, and that went live just yesterday. This new webpage provides current information for the customer regarding water and

sewer service and how the water division can be of service to Santa Ana customers. It includes information on how to conserve water for businesses and residences, and also allows for customers to be led to link to another site to pay their water bill and allows for more customer engagement. And that's all I have, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. City Manager. I'll bring it back to Council. Councilman Tinajero. I'm going to add nothing to report tonight. Thank you. Councilman Tinajero. Councilman Solorio.

Thank you, Councilman Benavides. Just a couple of items. Number one, I know we're in the process of firming up the recommendations for community development block grants and I think a lot of it is consistent work to past years but I know there's one element in there of beginning to conduct summer nights programs with teens over the summer months you know when they're not in school and they always don't have something good and positive to do so the idea is to work with non-profits to have night leagues if you will of sporting activities and in

conjunction to the school district when possible I know just based off the fact that summer is approaching and that facilities need to be reserved that I'd like to have you know that the appropriate staff work on fast-tracking that element or making sure we reserve the right facilities because I hate for us to make those grants but then the non-profits not have enough time to program the right facilities or do whatever work is required. So if we can have staff to do some lead work on that,

that'd be fantastic. Secondly, I know a little over the year ago there was a lot of discussion and debate regarding violent crime in our community and trends and I'm really pleased that under the leadership of our new Police Chief David Valentin that really when you look at full calendar year 2017 versus 2016 we saw some markable positive improvements both on violent crime and shootings I'd like a presentation be given to the City Council documenting the comparison of

those two years as well as some information on vacancies. I still believe and know that we have a number of vacancies in our police department and they are budgeted and sure for a variety of reasons mainly recruitment wise because it's hard to recruit folks I know it may be close to impossible to fill all the vacancies but we need to keep that top of mind and we need to keep working towards it. I know we also have a new personnel director and so you know we all need to work together with our police department and other community leaders and continuing to hire good quality officers because every year we

see 20 to 30 retire and so we at a minimum got a recruit and or keep longer or 20 to 30 every year. So that's a big challenge. And so I'm hopeful that at the next council meeting or two, we can give a report out to the community on that so that the community can see where we're at. Thank you.

Councilman Villavides, any comments?

Thank you, Council Member Villavides. I just want to mention that we have a new fire chief who was sworn in on Monday. That's Chief Hennessy from San Diego. Comes with a very, very strong background. Great leader. I had the pleasure of meeting him a couple of weeks ago. And I also want to mention that on April 11th, I attended the Santa Ana Police Department Employee Awards, and I want to congratulate every single one of the honorees from that evening and the whole department. Keep up the good work. and we stand behind you.

Thank you, Councilman Villegas. A couple of closing comments, final comments that I have. One is next week, Wednesday, Connect to Council will be having the meeting of South Coast Neighborhoods of Ward 4, and that will be at MacArthur Intermediate at 6.30 p.m., and myself and city manager and other staff will have the opportunity to present and engage the community address any questions that they have on several topics so I want to invite members of the public to be a part of that again next

Wednesday the 25th at MacArthur intermediate at 6 30 p.m. this last Saturday was actually a couple Saturdays back now was a Saturday art walk and that just keep in mind in that there's just a lot of there are a lot of activities positive activities going on in the city of Santa Ana I know that here are the council meetings sometimes it's it can be pretty exciting and some of the interesting conversations could bring your popcorn and be entertained here but there's a lot more going on out there and I just want to encourage folks to support the city support local businesses and job creation by shopping

local shopping in the city of Santana with that we'll have now meeting adjourned thank you have good night

Oh