HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - #08 ,L-Rennedy
• M M I S S 1 •
January 18, 2022
www.kennedycommission.org
17701 Cowan Ave.,Suite 200
Irvine,CA 92614
949 250 0909
Mayor and City Council
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Bo 1988, M31
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Item 8: Housing Opportunity Ordinance
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad-based coalition of residents and community
organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $27,000
annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and
working with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land-use policies that has led to
the new construction of homes affordable to lower-income working families.
We are writing to support the amendments to the Housing Opportunity Ordinance and Affordable
Housing Funds Policies. The changes will ensure that development in the City addresses housing needs for
all residents in a balanced manner. Many working families in Santa Ana continue to be impacted by the
rising cost of housing and the scarce housing opportunities available at rents they can afford. In addition,
many continue to face economic uncertainty because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The creation of
housing at all income levels is vital to our recovery and will provide stability for the majority of Santa Ana
residents that are struggling with housing availability and cost that existed long before the pandemic. It is
crucial that the City strengthen the Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO) to ensure that housing
opportunities are available for all residents in Santa Ana along with new housing options being created in
the City.
The City of Santa Ana is a renter majority city and despite the City's progress towards meeting its Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for very low- and low- income housing, there continues to
be a great need for housing that is affordable to its residents. The current pandemic has increased the
economic and housing pressures on low-income families in Santa Ana. As incomes are decreasing and jobs
are being lost, many low-income families are struggling to remain housed. This is especially true for the
majority of Santa Ana's low-income households that are suffering with the impacts of housing cost and
economic uncertainty. According to the City's local data, 70 % of Santa Ana renters are low and very low-
income renters. 80% of renters in Santa Ana fall into the moderate, low- and very low-income categories
and 84 % of residents hold low-income occupations that pay less than $53,500 per year'. Santa Ana's
households are predominantly families comprising 81% of households.' These households are also rent
burdened and live-in overcrowded conditions'.
1 City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element 2014-2021,p.14,January 2014.
2 City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element 2014—2021 page 11
3 City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element 2014—2021 page 20
While the City has seen increased production of affordable housing there has been a disproportionate
production of above moderate housing with a total of 3,274 above moderate units produced between 2013-
2021, the City exceeded its RHNA allocation by 3,638% per the City's RHNA progress reports submitted
to the state. With average rents of$2000 - $4000, none of these above market rental units are affordable to
most of Santa Ana's working families. Housing costs in Santa Ana have been out of reach and will continue
to be out of reach in this current economic climate. Households in Santa Ana must earn $44.83 an hour to
afford two-bedroom housing.4 The proposed amendments further incentivize housing units with market rate
rents and are not affordable to the majority of the City's residents.
The Commission supports the amendments to update the in-lieu fee to $15 per sq ft to be in line with a fee
that is fair and allows the City to fund much needed affordable housing for Santa Ana residents. We also
support the wider application of the Housing Opportunities Ordinance in the City of Santa Ana. This will
continue to facilitate the development of affordable housing in various areas of the city. The Commission
also recommends that the HOO apply to all residential developments in the City. At a minimum the HOO
affordable housing requirements should apply to all residential and mixed use developments that are asking
for zone changes,upzonings, following city initiated specific plans, general plan updates or those asking for
other development incentives.
In addition, the HOO should apply to all developments taking advantage of City initiated land use and
zoning changes, specific plans and general plan updates and amendments. Land use changes may create
higher land values,profit, and incentives for market rate developers.At the same time many of these market
developments are not affordable to the majority of Santa Ana's residents. In exchange for these development
incentives, new affordable housing for Santa Ana residents must be created.
The City must also ensure that the Inclusionary Housing Fund monies prioritize the construction of
affordable housing for extremely low- and very low-income families. These are the families that have the
most pressing needs in the City of Santa Ana. In addition,the fund should also prioritize addressing housing
insecurity, eviction prevention, and housing legal assistance for residents that would directly help current
Santa Ana residents with the exception of code enforcement. Diversion of these funds to other programs
unrelated to housing and direct help for families would not increase or improve the supply of affordable
housing.
We urge you to take into consideration the amendments and proposed recommendations to the Housing
Opportunity Ordinance. These recommendations will help the city increase affordable housing options for
residents and help the city meet equitable housing production goals.
Sincerely,
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
4 National Low Income Housing Coalition.Out of Reach The High Cost of Housing 202Lpg.18.Out of Reach 2021(nlihc.org)
II
January 14th, 2022
Mayor Sarmiento and City Council Members
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Item 8: Strengthen Housing Opportunity Ordinance and Affordable Housing Funds
Policies and Procedures
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Chispa is a political home for young Latinx in Orange County. Chispa seeks to engage
with excluded peoples to uproot systems of oppression and cultivate systems grounded in
community accountability, solidarity, and self-determination for our communities to
thrive.
We are writing to support the amendments to the Housing Opportunity Ordinance
and Affordable Housing Funds Policies. The changes will ensure that development in
the City addresses housing needs for all residents in a balanced manner. Many working
families in Santa Ana continue to be impacted by the rising cost of housing and the scarce
housing opportunities available at rents they can afford. In addition, many continue to face
economic uncertainty because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The creation of
housing at all income levels is vital to our recovery and will provide stability for the
majority of Santa Ana residents that are struggling with housing availability and cost that
existed long before the pandemic. It is crucial that the City strengthen the Housing
Opportunity Ordinance (HOO) to ensure that housing opportunities are available for all
residents in Santa Ana along with new housing options being created in the City.
The City of Santa Ana is a renter majority city and despite the City's progress towards meeting
its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for very low- and low- income
housing, there continues to be a great need for housing that is affordable to its residents. The
current pandemic has increased the economic and housing pressures on low-income families in
Santa Ana. As incomes are decreasing and jobs are being lost, many low-income families are
struggling to remain housed. This is especially true for the majority of Santa Ana's low-income
households that are suffering with the impacts of housing cost and economic uncertainty.
According to the City's local data, 70 % of Santa Ana renters are low and very low-income
renters. 80% of renters in Santa Ana fall into the moderate, low- and very low-income categories
and 84 % of residents hold low-income occupations that pay less than $53,500 per year'. Santa
Ana's households are predominantly families comprising 81% of households.' These households
are also rent burdened and live-in overcrowded conditions'.
While the City has seen increased production of affordable housing there has been a
disproportionate production of above moderate housing with a total of 3,274 above moderate
units produced between 2013-2021, the City exceeded its RHNA allocation by 3,638% per the
City's RHNA progress reports submitted to the state. With average rents of$2000 - $4000, none
of these above market rental units are affordable to most of Santa Ana's working families.
Housing costs in Santa Ana have been out of reach and will continue to be out of reach in this
current economic climate. Households in Santa Ana must earn $44.83 an hour to afford
two-bedroom housing.4 The proposed amendments further incentivize housing units with market
rate rents and are not affordable to the majority of the City's residents.
The Commission supports the amendments to update the in-lieu fee to $15 per sq ft to be in line
with a fee that is fair and allows the City to fund much needed affordable housing for Santa Ana
residents. We also support the wider application of the Housing Opportunities Ordinance in the
City of Santa Ana. This will continue to facilitate the development of affordable housing in
various areas of the city. The Commission also recommends that the HOO apply to all residential
developments in the City. At a minimum the HOO affordable housing requirements should apply
to all residential and mixed use developments that are asking for zone changes, upzonings,
following city initiated specific plans, general plan updates or those asking for other
development incentives.
In addition, the HOO should apply to all developments taking advantage of City initiated land
use and zoning changes, specific plans and general plan updates and amendments. Land use
changes may create higher land values, profit, and incentives for market rate developers. At the
same time many of these market developments are not affordable to the majority of Santa Ana's
residents. In exchange for these development incentives, new affordable housing for Santa Ana
residents must be created.
The City must also ensure that the Inclusionary Housing Fund monies prioritize the construction
of affordable housing for extremely low- and very low-income families. These are the families
1 City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element 2014-2021,p. 14,January 2014.
2 City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element 2014—2021 page 11
3 City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element 2014—2021 page 20
4 National Low Income Housing Coalition.Out of Reach The High Cost of Housing 2021,pg.18.Out of Reach 2021(nlihc.org)
that have the most pressing needs in the City of Santa Ana. In addition, the fund should also
prioritize addressing housing insecurity, eviction prevention, and housing legal assistance for
residents that would directly help current Santa Ana residents with the exception of code
enforcement. Diversion of these funds to other programs unrelated to housing and direct help for
families would not increase or improve the supply of affordable housing.
We urge you to take into consideration the amendments and proposed recommendations to the
Housing Opportunity Ordinance. These recommendations will help the city increase affordable
housing options for residents and help the city meet equitable housing production goals.
Bulmaro Vicente
Policy Director
Orozco, Norma
From: Alex Lee <a1exlee1212@protonmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2022 7:15 AM
To: eComment; Gomez, Daisy; Carvalho, Sonia R.
Subject: HOO and Additional Thai Phan Complaint
Attachments: Complaint Form 01-04-2022.pdf, Phan Complaint Addendum 12-08-2021.pdf, Phan
Complaint Addendum 12-22-2021.pdf, Phan Complaint Addendum 12-16-2021.pdf
Please see attached. Contrary to Phan and/or the City Attorney's opinion, a conflicted official MAY NOT
participate in any way including asking for a continuance.
Complaint Type
Electronic Complaint System
Complaint: If you suspect someone has violated the Political Reform Act, file a complaint with the FPPC's
Enforcement Division using the Electronic Complaint System. To file, provide the requested information on the
complaint below, attach all documents you have containing evidence of the violations using the document uploader,
and click submit. You will receive an email confirming receipt of your complaint if you provide a return email address.
If you file a sworn complaint, you will receive notifications regarding your complaint.
Referral: Filing officers can submit referrals to the Enforcement Division using the Electronic Complaint System. To
refer a matter for prosecution by the Enforcement Division, provide the information requested below, attach the
respondent's most recent statement or report and a copy of your conflict of interest code (if applicable), and click
submit. You will receive an email confirming receipt of the referral and notification when the FPPC takes action on the
referral.
If you have questions or problems submitting your complaint or referral, please email complaint@.ppcca.gov
and we will assist you.
Complaint Type
Complaint Type: Non -Sworn
Complaint
You will not receive any notifications regarding your complaint, but may be contacted for more
information. Your complaint is a public document.
Complaint Details
Your Contact Information
First Name: Alex
Last Name: Lee
Email: alexleel212&protonmail.com Phone Number: email please
Please note that non -sworn complaints do not receive notice of the resolution of the complaint.
In order to check the status of your complaint, you will need to email complaint&fppc.ca.gov.
Complaint Submission:: Page 1 of 3
Respondent Information
Position/Office First
Last
Zip
Phone
Held (if Jurisdiction Name
Name
Address
City
State Code Email
Number
applicable)
20 Civic
San(
ta
)
City Council Santa Ana Thai
Phan
Center
Ana
CA 92701 tphan(a)santa-ana.ora
647-5400
Plaza
Committee or Organization Name
Committee ID Address
City State Zip Code
Email Phone Number
Entity Name Entity ID Address
City
State
Zip Code Email
Phone Number
Violation Information
Violation Violation Code Violation Comments
Type Section
Manner of
Conflict Disqualification/Leave Please see letter and description in other violation allegation. Phan must not
of participate in the HOO hearings. She cannot make motions to continue with an
the Room
Interest Requirement (87105) unwaivable conflict of interest.
Conflict Please see attached letter. Councilwoman Thai Phan has a conflict of interest in
of 87306.5 - Conflict of the issue of the Santa Ana Housing Opportunity Ordinance because she works
Interest Interest Code; Local for Rutan & Tuckler who represents many local developers. Rtaher than recuse
herself, she has participated in three hearings.
ATTN - THE FPPC WILL NOT ACCEPT COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS:
• Brown Act
• False or Misleading Campaign Materials
• Election Fraud
• Federal Campaigns
• Local Ordinance/Local Contribution Limits
• Vandalism to Campaign Signs
• Not Living in the Jurisdiction
These alleged violations are not enforced by the FPPC. Please contact your local jurisdiction (i.e. your city attorney,
county counsel, or District Attorney).
Witnesses
First Last Street Address (including City State Zip Phone Email Information this Witness
Name Name number) Code Can Provide
Upload
Files
Document Name
Complaint Submission:: Page 2 of 3
Update Date/Time
Phan Complaint Addendum 12-08-2021.pdf
1 /4/2022 6:40 AM
Phan Complaint Addendum 12-16-2021.pdf
Phan Complaint Addendum 12-22-2021.pdf
Please click the upload document button after selecting your additional files.
Submit
Submit
1 /4/2022 6:40 AM
1 /4/2022 6:40 AM
Complaint Submission:: Page 3 of 3
December 22, 2021
(sent January 3, 2022)
Fair Political Practices Commission
Enforcement Division
1102 Q Street, Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95811
Also sent via email to complaint@fppc.ca.gov
Santa Ana City Clerk
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Also sent via email to dgomez@santa-ana.org
Santa Ana City Attorney
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Also sent via email to scarvalho@santa-ana.org
Regarding: Complaint regarding Conflict of Interest by City Councilwoman Thai Phan
To Whom it May Concern,
This letter is an addendum to the letters dated December 1, 2021 and December 8, 2021 regarding the
same conflict. On December 21, 2021, after receipt of that letter and with full knowledge of the issues
outlined, Councilwoman Thai Phan continued to participate in the HOO amendment matter and
quadrupled down on her violation of the code by making a motion to continue the HOO amendment
item.
The video of the hearing can be found at https://youtu.be/BJM5QCPiOds (Santa Ana Council, Dec 21,
2021-English, published by City of Santa Ana).
At Hour 4, minute 42, Mayor Sarmiento asks the Council if there are any items they would like to pull
from the consent calendar. Councilwoman Thai Phan made the following comment:
Thank you Mayor, 1 would like to ask that we again continue Item number 17, that's
regarding the Housing Opportunities Ordinance. Last time this item came up 1 asked
for a similar continuance in order to receive advice from the FPPC subject to a
complaint or referral comment from the public. 1 also did confirm with Madam City
Attorney that a request to continue an item is not a violation of FPPC regulations so
that is one item. And the other is 1'd like to specifically state that 1 have a conflict of
interest on Item 29 only as to the contract for Item 1 which is relating to Atkinson,
Adelson, Loya, Ruud, AALR, as they are client of my employer Rutan & Tucker. So 1
will be able to vote on the remaining items on Item 29, but not that particular
Agreement.
So, Councilwoman Phan does apparently understand what a conflict of interest based on her
employment at Rutan & Tucker is. It is hard to ascertain how she believes she still has the right to
participate on the HOO item under any circumstances.
At Hour 4, minute 46, Councilwoman Phan makes a motion on Item 17, the HOO
1 would move to continue it.
As previously stated, the proper procedure for Councilwoman Phan would have been to recuse herself
from the item completely and, if the City Attorney felt that a continuance was in order, for the City
Attorney to provide the option to the City Council to continue the item until a response of the conflict of
interest was received. IT IS A SEPARATE AND ADDITONAL VIOLATION OF THE STATE LAW AND
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR COUNCILWOMAN THAI PHAN TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE ON A VOTE
WHERE SHE HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. There is no exception in the law for participation in a matter
where an official has a conflict of interest to obtain a continuance of the item and certainly no ability to
make a motion of any kind where a conflict exists. The common sense reasoning for this would be if
Councilwoman Phan wanted to block the HOO amendment from being adopted for the benefit of her
Rutan & Tucker builder and developer clients, she could continually make motions to continue the item
thereby preventing the adoption of the item. The fact that the City Attorney requested an opinion from
the FPPC does not create a safe harbor for the conflicted official to continue to participate in the matter
in any way, even to continue it.
We ask the Fair Political Practices Commission to take this blatant disregard into consideration when
considering the investigation against Councilwoman Phan. As a professional municipal lawyer, she
knows the law and cannot plead ignorance. She has clearly let her political aspirations cloud her
professional judgement. Councilwoman Phan and the Santa Ana City Attorney are acting with a blatant
disregard for the public by continuing to allow her to participate on this item.
Sincerely,
a e�-�
Alex Lee
On behalf of numerous concerned Santa Ana
residents
alexleel212@protonmail.com
Enc: Package dated 12/1/2021
Package dated 12/8/2021
Orozco, Norma
From: Alex Lee <alexlee1212@protonmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 10:10 AM
To: Gomez, Daisy; Carvalho, Sonia R.; eComment
Subject: Re: FPPC Complaints filed Against Councilwoman Phan and Commissioner Ramos and
Agenda Item 9
Attachments: Phan Complaint Addendum 12-16-2021.pdf
The attached addendum was sent to the FPPC
We are working with legal council and intend to take action against the City of Santa Ana unless this issue is
properly dealt with.
Alex
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, December 7th, 2021 at 12:10 PM, Alex Lee <alexlee1212@protonmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I am writing on behalf of many concerned Santa Ana citizens. We feel that the HOO
amendments put forward by Commissioner Ramos and Councilwoman Phan have been a
coordinated effort to reward their political benefactors and that the votes taken by these two
officials have been violations of State and City code.
We call on the City Attorney, Mayor, and City Manager to cure this issue at once and to send the
HOO back to the Planning Commission (as several Councilmembers requested) for a hearing of
the new items raised by the conflicted members and a fair an impartial process without
Commissioner Ramos or Councilwoman Phan involved.
The referral to the FPPC is a referral and not a complaint yet. A sworn complaint will be filed if
the Council votes on the item tonight. The violation has already occurred regardless of the vote
tonight, however, Councilwoman Phan and the rest of the Council should not commit an
additional violation by voting on this item this evening.
Furthermore, the item is NOT appropriate for a second reading on the consent calendar because
the item has changed so materially from the original item that a full presentation of the change
MUST be presented before approval.
Legal issues of this approval include but are not limited to:
1. Improper Vote at Planning Commission with a conflict of interest and a pre -written motion
drafted by sources of income to Ramos.
2. Improper Vote at City Council with a conflict of interest and illegal conditions presented by
Councilwoman Phan.
3. Improper Vote on second reading at City Council with the same conflict of interest, illegal
conditions, and a improper placement of the item on consent calendar when the item had material
additional amendments.
The residents of Santa Ana deserve better representation than this. If the Council proceeds with
this vote tonight on the consent calendar, the Council will be improperly approving an already
improperly reviewed ordinance, drafted in a flawed process, by conflicted officials who should
have recused themselves from this item. There are several flaws in the process which WILL
subject the City to costly litigation.
Sincerely,
Alex Lee
December 8, 2021
Fair Political Practices Commission
Enforcement Division
1102 Q Street, Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95811
Also sent via email to complaint@fppc.ca.gov
Santa Ana City Clerk
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Also sent via email to dgomez@santa-ana.org
Santa Ana City Attorney
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Also sent via email to scarvalho@santa-ana.org
Regarding: Complaint regarding Conflict of Interest by City Councilwoman Thai Phan
To Whom it May Concern,
This letter is an addendum to the letter dated December 1, 2021 regarding the same conflict. On
December 7, 2021, after receipt of that letter and with full knowledge of the issues outlined,
Councilwoman Thai Phan continued to participate in the HOO amendment matter and tripled down on
her violation of the code by making a motion to continue the item.
The video of the hearing can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFtvMlUmKnM (Santa
Ana Council, Dec 7, 2021-English, published by City of Santa Ana).
At Hour 1, minute 27, before public comments, Councilwoman Thai Phan made the following comment:
Thank you, Mayor. So, this afternoon, the City and 1 received a correspondence from
an alleged resident stating that, or alleging that 1 have a conflict of interest, calling in
my ethical reasoning and my judgement. This is regarding an alleged conflict on the
Housing Opportunity Ordinance. 1 do not believe that 1 have a conflict of interest,
however, out of an abundance of caution, 1 have asked the City Attorney's office to
seek a formal opinion letter from the FPPC regarding the Housing Opportunity
Ordinance. As a result, and related thereto, 1 will move and ask the Council to
continue Item 9 regarding the Housing Opportunity Ordinance and again, out of an
abundance of caution, Item 37, the General Plan Amendment until the City receives a
response from the FPPC.
The proper procedure for Councilwoman Phan would have been to recuse herself from the item
completely and, if the City Attorney felt that a continuance was in order, for the City Attorney to provide
the option to the City Council to continue the item until a response of the conflict of interest was
received. IT IS A SEPARATE AND ADDITONAL VIOLATION OF THE STATE LAW AND MUNICIPAL CODE FOR
COUNCILWOMAN THAI PHAN TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE ON A VOTE WHERE SHE HAS A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. There is no exception in the law for participation in a matter where an official
has a conflict of interest to obtain a continuance of the item and certainly no ability to make a motion of
any kind where a conflict exists.
We ask the Fair Political Practices Commission to take this blatant disregard into consideration when
considering the investigation against Councilwoman Phan. As a professional municipal lawyer, she
knows the law and cannot plead ignorance. She has clearly let her political aspirations cloud her
professional judgement.
Attached is an analysis which our attorney prepared in preparation for challenging the decision should
the City of Santa Ana refuse to remedy this situation.
Sincerely,
a e.-�
Alex Lee
On behalf of numerous concerned Santa Ana
residents
alexleel212@protonmail.com
Enc: Package dated 12/1/2021
Legal Analysis
This letter serves as a follow up to the December 1, 2021 "Complaint regarding Conflict of
Interest by City Councilwoman Thai Phan" (the "Complaint"). The facts and allegations stated in the
Complaint are incorporated herein.
As a member of the Santa Ana City Council ("City Council"), Ms. Phan is prohibited by
Government Code Section 87100 of the Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "PRA" or the "Act") from
making, participating in making, or attempting to use her official position to influence any governmental
decision in which she knew, or had reason to know, she had a financial interest. By making governmental
decisions in which she had a financial interest, Ms. Phan violated Government Code Section 87100. The
only acceptable remedy is for the City Council to formally rescind its November 16, 2021 approval of the
Housing Opportunity Ordinance ("HOO") and convene a new vote among eligible, non -conflicted
members of the City Council.
I. Introduction to the Law
When the PRA was enacted, the people of the state of California found and declared that previous
laws regulating political practices suffered from inadequate enforcement by state and local authorities.
(Government Code § 81001(h).) Government Code Section 81003 requires that the Act be "liberally
construed to accomplish its purposes." As such, the Act sets the floor, but not the ceiling, for the conduct
of public officials.
The goal of the State's conflict -of -interest laws is to promote public confidence in public
agencies. The Act is intended to ensure that "[p]ublic officials, whether elected or appointed ... perform
their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial
interests of persons who have supported them[.]" (Government Code § 81001(b).)
Section 87100 prohibits public officials from making, participating in making, or attempting to
use their official positions to influence any governmental decision in which they knew, or have reason to
know, they have a financial interest. A public official has a financial interest in a decision if it is
reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a "material financial effect" on a recognized economic
interest of the official. (Government Code § 87103.)
An analysis on this issue requires six steps to determine whether a public official has a conflict of
interest in a governmental decision.' That analysis follows:
1. The public official must be one as defined in the Act.
Government Code Section 82048 defines "[p]ublic official" to mean every member of a "local
government agency." Government Code Section 82041 defines " [1]ocal government agency" to include a
city council, which is "any department, division, bureau, office, board, commission or other agency" of a
City.
2. The public official must make, participate in making, or attempt to use their official position
to influence a governmental decision.
A public official "makes a governmental decision" when the public official votes on a matter.
(Regulation § 18704(a).)
' The Public Generally Exception (Regulations § 18703(a)) does not appear to apply here, nor does the
Legally Required Participation Exception (Government Code § 87101).
3. The public official must have an economic interest that may be financially affected by the
governmental decision.
A public official has an economic interest in any business entity from which they have received
income aggregating $500 or more within 12 months prior to the time when the relevant governmental
decision is made. (Regulation 18700.1(a)(2).)
4. The economic interest of the public official must be directly or indirectly involved in the
decision, or there must be a nexus between the public official's duties owed to the source of
income and the official's public agency.
A nexus exists between the public official's duties owed to the source of income and the official's
public agency if the public official receives or is promised the income to achieve a goal or purpose that
would be achieved, defeated, aided, or hindered by the decision. (Regulation 18702.3(b).)
5. It must be decided what materiality standard applies to the economic interest of the public
official
Any reasonably foreseeable financial effect on a business entity that is a source of income to a
public official is deemed material if the public official receives or is promised the income to achieve a
goal or purpose that would be achieved, defeated, aided, or hindered by the decision. (Regulation
18702.3(b).)
6. Finally, it must have been reasonably foreseeable, at the time the governmental decision was
made, that the decision would have a material financial effect on the economic interest of the
official
If the financial effect can be recognized as a realistic possibility and more than hypothetical or
theoretical, it is reasonably foreseeable. (Regulation 18701(a), (b).) A material financial effect on an
economic interest is reasonably foreseeable if it is substantially likely that one or more of the materiality
standards applicable to the economic interest will be met as a result of the governmental decision.
II. Application of the Law to the Facts
Ms. Phan was a Public Official.
At all times relevant to this matter, Ms. Phan was a member of the Santa Ana City Council, and
was thus a public official under the Act.
2. Ms. Phan made a Governmental Decision.
On November 16, 2021, Ms. Phan, in her official capacity as a member of the City Council, not
only voted on the HOO, but lead the discussion. When Ms. Phan voted on the matter, she made a
governmental decision.
Ms. Phan had an Economic Interest.
During the 12 months before November 16, 2021, Ms. Phan received over $10,000 of income
from the law firm of Rutan & Tucker (the "Firm"). Ms. Phan's 2021 Form 700 shows over $100,000 from
the Firm, where she remains employed as of the date of this letter. She therefore had an economic interest
in the Firm on November 16, 2021.
4. There was a Nexus between Ms. Phan's Duties owed to the Firin and to the Council.
Ms. Phan's duties as an attorney within the "Builders and Land Developers Team" of the Firm
includes advocating on behalf of the Firm's real estate client base, which includes developers of projects
in Santa Ana. Upon information and belief, the Firm represents real estate developer Centennial in the re -
entitlement of the 49-acre Main Place Mall as well as the developer(s) of the One Broadway Plaza
project, which is being re -entitled to include 14 floors of residential apartments. Both are major
redevelopment projects in Santa Ana. Centennial's Santa Ana Main Place Mall and the One Broadway
Plaza project developer(s) could be two of the "vested" projects specifically carved out of the HOO
legislation approved by Ms. Phan. Because Centennial, the One Broadway Plaza developer(s), and likely
other developers of Santa Ana residential projects are clients of the Firm, and Ms. Phan's duties as an
associate attorney within the "Builders and Developers Team" includes representing developer clients and
promoting the financial interests of the Firm, Ms. Phan's votes on the HOO created a nexus between her
duties owed to the Firm and her duties owed to the public via the City Council. (Regulation 18702.3(b).)
It takes little imagination to foresee a situation where a Firm client might directly, and
significantly, benefit from certain changes to the HOO.
Any Reasonably Foreseeable Financial Effect on the Firm met the Materiality Standard.
Because there existed a nexus between Ms. Phan's duties to the Firm and its clients and to the
City Council, any reasonably foreseeable financial effect on the Firm is deemed material. (Regulation
18702.3(b).)
It was Substantially that Ms. Phan's Decisions would have a Financial Effect on
the Firm.
Upon information and belief, it was substantially likely that Ms. Phan's decisions would result in
benefits to Centennial, the developer(s) of One Broadway Plaza, and potentially other Firm clients who
have projects within the City. It is also substantially likely Ms. Phan's decisions could increase or
enhance those clients' ties to and business with the Firm, or attract new clients to the Firm. As such, it
was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the decision that the decision would have a financial effect on
the Firm.
III. Conclusion
Based on the above, by making governmental decisions in which she had a financial interest, Ms.
Phan violated Government Code Section 87100. As stated above, the only acceptable remedy is for the
City Council to formally rescind its November 16, 2021 approval of the Housing Opportunity Ordinance
and convene a new vote among eligible, non -conflicted members of the City Council.
December 7, 2021
City Council
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Bo 1988, M31
Santa Ana, CA 92701
www.kennedycommission.org
17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949 250 0909
Re: Item 9: Strengthen Housing Opportunity Ordinance and Affordable Housing Funds Policies
and Procedures
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad -based coalition of residents and community
organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than
$27,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering
and working with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land -use policies that has
led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower -income working families.
We are writing to support the amendments to the Housing Opportunity Ordinance and Affordable
Housing Funds Policies. The changes will ensure that development in the City addresses housing needs
for all residents in a balanced manner. Many working families in Santa Ana continue to be impacted by
the rising cost of housing and the scarce housing opportunities available at rents they can afford. In
addition, many continue to face economic uncertainty because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The
creation of housing at all income levels is vital to our recovery and will provide stability for the majority
of Santa Ana residents that are struggling with housing availability and cost that existed long before the
pandemic. It is crucial that the City strengthen the Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO) to ensure that
housing opportunities are available for all residents in Santa Ana along with new housing options being
created in the City.
The City of Santa Ana is a renter majority city and despite the City's progress towards meeting its
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for very low- and low- income housing, there
continues to be a great need for housing that is affordable to its residents. The current pandemic has
increased the economic and housing pressures on low-income families in Santa Ana. As incomes are
decreasing and jobs are being lost, many low-income families are struggling to remain housed. This is
especially true for the majority of Santa Ana's low-income households that are suffering with the impacts
of housing cost and economic uncertainty. According to the City's local data, 70 % of Santa Ana renters
are low and very low-income renters. 80% of renters in Santa Ana fall into the moderate, low- and very
low-income categories and 84 % of residents hold low-income occupations that pay less than $53,500 per
year'. Santa Ana's households are predominantly families comprising 81% of households.' These
households are also rent burdened and live-in overcrowded conditions'.
While the City has seen increased production of affordable housing there has been a disproportionate
production of above moderate housing with a total of 3,274 above moderate units produced between
2013-2021, the City exceeded its RHNA allocation by 3,638% per the City's RHNA progress reports
submitted to the state. With average rents of $2000 - $4000, none of these above market rental units are
affordable to most of Santa Ana's working families.
The need will be much greater as the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated housing needs that were
already existing in our communities. Housing costs in Santa Ana have been out of reach and will
continue to be out of reach in this current economic climate. Households in Santa Ana must earn $44.83
an hour to afford two -bedroom housing.' The proposed amendments further incentivize housing units
with market rate rents and are not affordable to the majority of the City's residents.
The Commission supports the amendments to update the in -lieu fee to $15 per sq ft to be in line with a
fee that is fair and allows the City to fund much needed affordable housing for Santa Ana residents. We
also support the wider application of the Housing Opportunities Ordinance in the City of Santa Ana. This
will continue to facilitate the development of affordable housing in various areas of the city.
The Commission also recommends that the HOO apply to all residential developments in the City. At a
minimum the HOO affordable housing requirements should apply to all residential and mixed use
developments that are asking for zone changes, upzonings, following city initiated specific plans, general
plan updates or those asking for other development incentives.
In addition, the HOO should apply to all developments taking advantage of City initiated land use and
zoning changes, specific plans and general plan updates and amendments. Land use changes may create
higher land values, profit, and incentives for market rate developers. At the same time many of these
market developments are not affordable to the majority of Santa Ana's residents. In exchange for these
development incentives, new affordable housing for Santa Ana residents must be created.
The City must also ensure that the Inclusionary Housing Fund monies prioritize the construction of
affordable housing for extremely low- and very low-income families. These are the families that have the
most pressing needs in the City of Santa Ana. In addition, the fund should also prioritize addressing
housing insecurity, eviction prevention, and housing legal assistance for residents that would directly
help current Santa Ana residents with the exception of code enforcement. Diversion of these funds to
other programs unrelated to housing and direct help for families would not increase or improve the
supply of affordable housing.
We urge you to take into consideration the amendments and proposed recommendations to the Housing
Opportunity Ordinance. These recommendations will help the city increase affordable housing options
for residents and help the city meet equitable housing production goals.
1 City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element 2014-2021, p. 14, January 2014.
' City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element 2014 — 2021 page 11
3 City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element 2014 — 2021 page 20
4 National Low Income Housing Coalition. Out of Reach The High Cost of Housing 2021,pg.18. Out: of Reach 2021 (i lihc.org�
Sincerely,
w. . ........ .
.............
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
LATINO7
HEALTHr ,
ACCESS f rl1r
December 7, 2021
Mayor Sarmiento and City Council Members
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Latino Health Access
450 W. Fourth Street, Suite 130
Santa Ana, CA 92701
714-542-7792
www. latinohealthaccess.org
RE: Support to adopt Agenda Item 49, Housing Opportunity Ordinance
Latino Health Access has been proudly working alongside community residents for over 27 years to
improve the social determinants of health in our city. We provide services that address immediate health
needs while providing information and facilitating opportunities to increase civic participation and
impact policies that will improve those social determinants in the long term. Therefore, we are writing
in support of the adoption of the Housing Opportunity Ordinance.
The COVID-19 pandemic has altered everyday life across the globe. Beyond the disastrous health
consequences, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the global economy with soaring income loss,
underemployment, and unemployment rates. An impact that has worsened and aggravated the living
conditions for many residents across the City of Santa Ana. The lack of affordable housing and the
rising cost of housing for our low-income residents has forced people into overcrowded living
conditions and rent -burden. Therefore, the City must strengthen the Housing Opportunity Ordinance
(HOO) to ensure that housing opportunities are available for all residents in Santa Ana. Increasing
affordable housing development opportunities along with market -rate housing will be crucial in creating
new housing that residents in Santa Ana can truly afford. The creation of housing at all income levels is
vital to our recovery and will provide stability for the majority of Santa Ana residents that are struggling
with housing availability and cost.
While the city has seen increased production of affordable housing it has not been enough to address the
past deficits and growing needs for affordable housing based on the population's housing needs and
incomes of residents in Santa Ana. As an example, according to the City's local data, 80% of Santa Ana
renters are moderate, low, and very low-income renters. Yet the most significant increase of housing has
been in the above moderate housing category with a total of 3,274 above moderate units produced
between 2013-2021, the City exceeded its RHNA allocation by 3,638% per the City's RHNA progress
reports submitted to the state. Hence, the majority of these new rental housing units, with an above
moderate average rent of $2000- $4000, are not available to address the housing needs of most working
families in Santa Ana.
Housing costs in Santa Ana have been out of reach and will continue to be out of reach in this current
PREVENTION EDUCATION ACTION
Latino Health Access
L.ATIN 7 450 W. Fourth Street, Suite 130
ljr
HEALTH �„ �� Santa Ana, CA 92701
714-542-7792
www. latinohealthaccess.org
economic climate. Households in Santa Ana must earn $44.83 an hour to afford two -bedroom housing.'
The proposed amendments further incentivize housing units with market -rate rents and are not
affordable to the majority of the City's residents.
As such, we support the following recommendation to the Housing Opportunity Ordinance:
Housing Opportunity Ordinance Recommendation
e The proposed recommendations to Sec. 41-1904. Options to Satisfy Inclusionary
Requirements
We support the recommendations to incentivize the use of a local skilled and trained
workforce. These recommendations will not only prepare people for employment and
help Santa Ana workers advance in their careers, but it will also ensure a skilled
workforce exists to support local industry and the local economy. However, we do
recommend the city to report an open and transparent data on the use of local skilled
and trained workforce.
However, we strongly disagree with the following recommendations to the Housing
Opportunity Ordinance:
e The proposed recommendation to Sec.41-1903. Exempt projects.
We believe that all the development projects that have not paid their in -lieu fees,
regardless of their entitlement status should comply with the Housing Opportunity
Ordinance's on -site affordability requirements and in -lieu fee requirements.
To add on, we urge you to reconsidered the Planning Commission recommendations to the
Housing Opportunity Ordinance for the November 16, 2021 council meeting. The
recommendations are as follows:
e The proposed amendment to Sec. 41-1902. Applicability and Inclusionary Unit
Requirement
The City should ensure that affordable housing is built on new housing developments
or allow for developers to pay their fair share of funds to provide Santa Ana residents
with affordable housing. We support the Planning Commission's recommendations to
increase the on -site requirement options as follows: 20% at low income, or 15% at
National Low Income Housing Coalition. Out of Reach The High Cost of Housing 2021,pg.18. lJu�t: of Reach 2021 (nla.nc..r).
PREVENTION EDUCATION ACTION
Latino Health Access
L.ATIN 7 450 W. Fourth Street, Suite 130
ljr
HEALTH �„ �� Santa Ana, CA 92701
714-542-7792
www. latinohealthaccess.org
very -low income, or 10% at extremely -low income, or a blended option of 15% where
5% is at extremely low income, 5% very -low income and 5% low-income income.
e The proposed amendment to Sec. 41-1904. Options to Satisfy Inclusionary
Requirements
We support the Planning Commission's recommendations to increase the in -lieu fees
in the In -Lieu Fee Schedule as follows: $10 sq. ft. for a residential project consisting
of 5 to 9 units, $11.66 sq. ft. for residential projects consisting of 10 to 14 units,
$13.32 sq. ft. for residential projects consisting of 15 to 19 units, and $15 aq. ft. for
residential projects consisting of 20 or more units. The $15+ sq. ft. fee is in line with
regional in -lieu fees and is further supported by a feasibility study of Santa Ana's
housing and real estate market where a higher in -lieu fee range of $17.10 sq.ft.- $17.80
sq. ft. are recommended by the City's consultant.
We urge you to support the adoption of the Housing Opportunity Ordinance and reconsidered
the Planning Commission recommendations to the Housing Opportunity Ordinance for the
November 16, 2021 council meeting. The proposed amendments will help the city increase
affordable housing options for Santa Ana residents.
Sincerely,
-.D
Nancy Mejia, MPH, MSW
Chief Program Officer
PREVENTION EDUCATION ACTION
Orozco, Norma
From: Alex Lee <a1exlee1212@protonmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2021 12:10 PM
To: Gomez, Daisy; Carvalho, Sonia R.; eComment
Subject: FPPC Complaints filed Against Councilwoman Phan and Commissioner Ramos and
Agenda Item 9
Attachments: Complaint re Phan.pdf, Complaint re Ramos.pdf
Hello,
I am writing on behalf of many concerned Santa Ana citizens. We feel that the HOO amendments put forward
by Commissioner Ramos and Councilwoman Phan have been a coordinated effort to reward their political
benefactors and that the votes taken by these two officials have been violations of State and City code.
We call on the City Attorney, Mayor, and City Manager to cure this issue at once and to send the HOO back to
the Planning Commission (as several Councilmembers requested) for a hearing of the new items raised by the
conflicted members and a fair an impartial process without Commissioner Ramos or Councilwoman Phan
involved.
The referral to the FPPC is a referral and not a complaint yet. A sworn complaint will be filed if the Council
votes on the item tonight. The violation has already occurred regardless of the vote tonight, however,
Councilwoman Phan and the rest of the Council should not commit an additional violation by voting on this
item this evening.
Furthermore, the item is NOT appropriate for a second reading on the consent calendar because the item has
changed so materially from the original item that a full presentation of the change MUST be presented before
approval.
Legal issues of this approval include but are not limited to:
1. Improper Vote at Planning Commission with a conflict of interest and a pre -written motion drafted by
sources of income to Ramos.
2. Improper Vote at City Council with a conflict of interest and illegal conditions presented by Councilwoman
Phan.
3. Improper Vote on second reading at City Council with the same conflict of interest, illegal conditions, and a
improper placement of the item on consent calendar when the item had material additional amendments.
The residents of Santa Ana deserve better representation than this. If the Council proceeds with this vote
tonight on the consent calendar, the Council will be improperly approving an already improperly reviewed
ordinance, drafted in a flawed process, by conflicted officials who should have recused themselves from this
item. There are several flaws in the process which WILL subject the City to costly litigation.
Sincerely,
Alex Lee
December 1, 2021
Fair Political Practices Commission
Enforcement Division
1102 Q Street, Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95811
Also sent via email to .c..oinn„I!.g ntj�fl .1aLoL2,g2y
Santa Ana City Clerk
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Also sent via email to .gra!nz!!t:girora!wg
Santa Ana City Attorney
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Also sent via email to scar a.1.1ho. ���i!tg:g!!�ora!wg
Regarding: Complaint regarding Conflict of Interest in Planning Commission Decision
To Whom it May Concern,
On October 25, 2021, the Santa Ana Planning Commission amended Municipal Code Section 41-1900
(the "Housing Opportunity Ordinance" or "HOO").
On November 9, 2021 the attached letter was sent to Mayor Vince Sarmiento and carbon copied to the
City Council, Planning Commission, and City Attorney asserting a Conflict of Interest between Planning
Commissioner Isuri Ramos and several organizations. This letter outlined an un-waivable conflict of
interest which should disqualify Ramos and require a re -hearing of the issue without the biased
Commissioner's participation.
On November 16, 2021, the Santa Ana City Council considered the first reading of the amendment to
the HOO. Amidst several other improprieties which will be the subject of a future complaint, the City
Council erroneously dismissed the concerns regarding the alleged conflicts of interest and failed to
properly investigate the issue.
Itt1a;ypto.I;..,.f.U.fIWI C✓IWIIWIJC (Santa Ana Council Nov. 16 The video of the hearing can be found at ,
2021-English, published by City of Santa Ana).
Testimony at November 16, 2021 Hearing
At hour 6, minute 4, Adam Wood of the BIA put several concerns regarding the process on the record
and referred to the letter attached hereto.
At hour 6, minute 17, Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director of the Kennedy Commission spoke in favor
of the amendments and the Planning Commission changes. Notably, Commissioner Ramos lists the
Kennedy Commission as a source of income on her Form 770 Statement of Economic Interests.
At hour 6, minute 19, the City Clerk referred to written communications, but failed to outline the
concerns raised by the letter.
At hour 6, minute 20, Daisy Cruz from the Kennedy Commission spoke in favor of the amendments. See
the notes above regarding the Kennedy Commission and Commissioner Ramos.
At hour 6, minute 22, Ana Charco, of Latino Health Access, another one of Commissioner Ramos' listed
sources of income, spoke in favor of the amendments.
The City Attorney
At hour 6, minute 25, Mayor Sarmiento asks the City Attorney about the attached letter. The City
Attorney states that there was no conflict of interest because "there was no economic interest at stake"
and that there is a difference between a legislative decision and adjudicative decisions. It is stated that
the HOO was a legislative act and therefore there is no bias. This legal opinion is not supported by the
caselaw nor by common sense. This legal opinion appears to be the case of a City Attorney counting the
votes on the Council and arriving at the legal opinion which supports the majority of the Council.
To argue that there is no economic interest at stake or bias is preposterous reasoning by the City
Attorney and cannot withstand the simplest of common sense. At the City Council hearing on the
amendments, there were only 8 total speakers on the item. 5 had comments about the process and the
need for more input. Only 3 were in support of the amendments proffered by Commissioner Ramos. Of
these, all 3 are the sources of income listed on Ramos' statement of economic interests. NOT A SINGLE
PERSON NOT APPEARING ON RAMOS' STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE
HOO AMENDMENTS AT THE NOVEMBER 16, 2021 MEETING. To call the HOO ordinance an issue of
general interest is to misstate the facts of this issue. The HOO ONLY effects developers of housing in the
City of Santa Ana. The fact that the exaction occurs before a specific project can negotiate the specifics
of that particular project DOES NOT change the fact that this amendment to the HOO directly affects the
due process of residential developers in the City of Santa Ana.
Councilwoman Thai Phan Doubles Down on the Conflicts of Interest
At Hour 6, minute 35, Councilwoman Thai Phan dismisses the conflict of interest and echoes the
tortured logic of the City Attorney. A practicing City Attorney herself, Phan apparently doesn't
understand that a conflict of interest is not excused based on an item being legislative rather than quasi-
judicial. There is simply no premise for the concept that legislative acts do not have conflicts of interest
and to argue such is to turn the entire Government Code section on its head.
As an aside, Councilmember Thai Phan is an attorney at the law firm of Rutan & Tucker which represents
many residential developers directly affected by the HOO amendments. So, it comes at no surprise that
she doesn't understand conflicts of interest because she herself likely has one which should separately
recuse her from her participation in this matter. Conflicts of interest do not say that a decision maker
with a conflict of interest can only participate if they vote against the interests of their clients, it is a
total bar to participation. It would be unbelievable for Phan to argue that her firm's numerous
developer clients would hypothetically have nothing to do with her cutting the fee to $0 to benefit her
clients, but she appears to believe that voting to increase the fee (and adding a completely illegal
condition of mandating "skilled and trained workforce" for all housing beginning in 2025) has no
economic impact on her firm's clients. Attached to this complaint and to the subsequent complaint
PA
which will be filed is a print out of the Rutan & Tucker websit�e showing that Thai Phan is a membier of
the firmi's "Builders and Land Developers Teaim" page. Also attached is a copy of her Statement of
Economic Interests form. While it is arguable whether a lawyer may list ONLY their �l�aw firm as a source
of income oMOOO aind thuls shield their actual clients from disclosure to the -kublic, it is si;m�! ]Zi not
believable that Thai Phan derives iincome from representing buildersancl developers in the community.
This soluirce of income is a total bar to her participation on matters such, as the HOO amendment and,
while she may argue that it is a broadly applied ordinance in the City, the facts are that a Verm diagram
showing the entities subject to the HOO, and Rutain and Tucker's Builder and Developer clients would be
l�argely the same group of People.
S -rz 7a IINK1,1i
investigation into the matter, and c) notwithstanding Councilwoman Thai Phan's employment as a
municiporney, she is apparently unaware of how conflicts of interest work in practice (or more
interested in pohtical grandstanding than following the rules).
Mayor Sairimienito
At hour 6, minute 56, Mayor Sairmiento, an attorney himself, dismisses legal conflicts of interest as
"'baggage,"' Sarmiienito goes on to say that he did research on the organizaition who drafted the letter
and staited that they are latino market rate dopeirs, He dismisses the petitioners as "biased
themselves." This may be the low point of the discussion on the matter because there is aibsol�utely n
I
case law or code that suggests that a legal conflict of interest may not be asserted by people within a
, u 11
City who have interests. Commissioner Ramos' conflict on interest is a quiestion of fact. To imp ;n t
people who pointed out that facts is irrelevant, inappropriate, and inflammatory and below the
standard by which a Mayor of a major City should conduct themselves.
The code clearly states that to avoid actual bias or the appearance of possible improprieties, a public
official with a disqualifying conflict of interest in a government decision must be prohibited from
participating in the decision.
The FPPC outlines five types of interests that may result in disqualification. Of these, the "income"
interest is clearly met by Ramos. "An individual or an entity from whom the official has received income
or promised income aggregating to $500 or more in the previous 12 months." Please see the attached
Form 700's filed by Commissioner Ramos. The test goes on to see whether the financial impact of the
decision is foreseeable and significant enough to material. In this case, the facts speak for themselves.
The amendments to the HOO were significant enough to these entities that they spoke at the Planning
Commission hearing, obviously aided Ramos in her preparation of a motion, and then spoke in favor of
the amendments at the City Council hearing. If the effect wasn't significant, it would be hard to believe
that the only advocates of the amendments to the Ordinance just happened to be entities from whom
Commissioner Ramos received income.
Potential State Law Violations:
The actions of Ramos potential violate Government Code Sections 1090-1097.5. Commissioner
Ramos should have recused herself from the hearing on the HOO amendments because she has
received income from entities who had a significant interest in the municipal issue. If Ramos
had recused herself, the amendments would not have been offered in the same manner and the
item would not have passed with a one vote margin. Her participation had a significant impact
and effect on the municipal question in which these entities have an interest.
2. The City Council and City Attorney erred by not sending the item back to the Planning
Commission for a hearing without the disqualified Planning Commissioner.
3. City Councilwoman Thai Phan likely violated the code by voting on the HOO due to the number
of economically affected clients who are the sources of income to her employer Rutan and
Tucker.
Potential City of Santa Ana Violations:
1. The participation by Commissioner Ramos likely violates Santa Ana Municipal Code section 2-
105. First, Ramos should have "absented" [herself] from the room where the meeting was held
during debate and voting on the matter. Second, per the code, Ramos should have divulged any
"remote interest" before voting. Neither of these occurred and the City Attorney cannot
"sweep it all under the rug" by stating that there is no financial interest. This opinion violates
the latter part of code section 2-105.
2. Councilwoman Thai Phan's participation in the November 16, 2021 hearing likely violated the
municipal code requirements discussed above.
all
As stated previously, the California State Fair Political Practices Commission is being contacted because
the complaint filed with the Mayor and City Attorney were not taken seriously. Additionally, the
investigative authority of the Commission is ideally situated to obtain information regarding the conflicts
of interest alleged herein.
A hearing for the second reading of the HOO amendments is scheduled for Tuesday December 7, 2021
beginning at 5:00 pm. It is requested that FPPC staff alert the City of Santa Ana to the conflicts of
interest before this meeting occurs.
We have referred this matter to an attorney and reserve the right to challenge these decisions.
Alex Lee
On behalf of numerous concerned Santa Ana
residents
a....�".%�.1..�".�.d.2:..:. ...I..lrvratral..! .2.!..l..:.com
Enc: Letter sent by United Latinos Vote to Mayor Sarmiento dated 11/9/2021
Commissioner Ramos Statement of Economic Impact Forms
Councilwoman Phan Statement of Economic Impact Forms
Rutan and Tucker Builders and Land Developers Team page
Letter sent by United Latinos Vote to Mayor Sarmiento
dated 11/9/2021
U LV 360;0,andAvenur,
No- 3413
Oakland CA 94610
Tel 510-501-6837
UNITED LATINOS VOTE
November 9, 2021
Vince Sarmiento
Mayor
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Santa Ana Planning Commissioner Conflict of Interest
Dear Mayor, Council, Commission and Staff:
On behalf of United Latinos Vote, I am writing to express concern over an invalidating conflict of
interest occurring at the October 25, 2021 Santa Ana Planning Commission. Such action raises
several issues which require your further action.
On October 25, 2021, a legally -biased Santa Ana Planning Commissioner cast the deciding vote
on her own motion to amend Municipal Code Section 41-1900 et al. (the "Housing Opportunity
Ordinance", or "HOO"). Due process requires the unwinding of the Commission's decision
and a rehearing without the biased Commissioner's participation.
Commissioner Isuri Ramos is a "Trairdng and Development Associate" for Latino Health Access
("LHA") and cams between $1,001 - $1 0,,000. She also works for Kennedy Commission at, a salary
between $10,001 - $100,000. St. Joseph Hospital (the "Hospital") is listed as one of nine major
"fanders" on the Kennedy Commission's website.
Out of three public comment letters provided to the Commission in advance of the October 25
hearing on the HOO, two were submitted by organizations with close ties to Commissioner Ramos.
LHA submitted a letter to the Commission in support of the proposed amendments to the HOO
and affordable housing funds policies (the "LHA Letter"). Specifically, the LHA Letter
recommend that the Commission:
Increase the HOO's in -lieu fee from $5 to $15 per square foot (LHA Letter, , p. 2);
• Apply the HOO "to all residential developments in the City" (id.); and
• "[M]ake new construction of affordable housing for extremely low- and very low-
income families a priority when using the housing fund monies (id.).
The Hospital also sent a letter to the Commission in support of the proposed. amendments to the
HOO (the "Hospital Letter"). The Hospital Letter asked that the Commission take the same actions
as the LHA Letter, including providing nearly word-for-word recommendations compared to the
LHA Letter. (See Hospital Letter, pp. 2-3.) Such a coincidence is unlikely, suggesting that the
Hospital coordinated with LHA.
During the October 25 hearing, the questions posed by Commissioner Ramos were alarmingly
similar to the recommendations posed in the LHA and Hospital Letters. Case in point: the LHA
and Hospital Letters asked the Commission to apply the HOO "to all residential developments in
the City" and Commissioner Ramos's first question to Staffwas why ;`Staff is not recommending
that the entire City be an applicable area under the HOOT' (Hearing Video, 22:30.) Moreover,
whereas the LHA and Hospital Letters both asked for the in -lieu fee to be increased "from $5 to
$15 per sq ft," Commissioner Ramos asked to increase the "range of the in -lieu fee" from $5 to
$15 to $10 to $15.
In addition, two public comments during the Commission's hearing were provided by employees
of LHA and colleagues of Commissioner Ramos. One of these public comments was in Spanish,
from Araceli Robles on behalf of the LHA. (Hearing Video, 1-05-20.) Her comments were then
roughly translated and summarized in English for the Commission's consideration. Commissioner
Ramos then inappropriately inserted herself into the conversation and stated "I can provide support
if you would like" (Hearing Video, 1:07.13). Unprompted, she then delivered to the Commission
even more information about Robles's concerns, going above and beyond this initial translation,
providing what appeared to be direct quotations from Robles's statement, given just seconds before
(Hearing Video, 1:08:20). Another public comment from the Kennedy Commission mirrored
Commissioner Ramos' desire to increase the in lieu fee and tracked her question about applying
the HOO throughout the City.
As if all this were not already enough to disqualify Commissioner Ramos from voting on any HOO
amendment, she then (1) personally initiated what was likely a pre -written motion; and (2) cast the
deciding vote (4-3) on it. It will come as no surprise that the language of the motion closely
matched the suggestions from the LHA Letter, the Hospital Letter, and the two public comments
by her colleagues. Again, this was no coincidence.
The law with respect to biased decisionmakers is clear. Due process requires that a decisionmaker
be fair and impartial. The law does not require proof of actual bias. Rather, it is sufficient to
invalidate a decision if "an unacceptable probability of actual bias" by the municipal
decisionmaker is established. (Woodys Group,, Inc. v City of'Neiiport Beach (2015) 233
Cal.App.4th 1012, 1022.) When it is established that a biased decisionmaker participated in a
decision, the appropriate remedy is to return the matter to the body for a rehearing without biased
decisionmaker's participation.
Because of her close ties to organizations and callers actively participating in advocacy regarding
the HOO, in addition to her actions on the night of the hearing, it is beyond doubt that
Commissioner Ramos harbors "an unacceptable probability of actual bias" on the HOO. (Woodv's
Group,supra, 233 Cal.AppAth at p. 1022.) In addition, Commissioner Ramos' s alternative motion
had likely been written out beforehand, wholly belying her own self-serving comment at the
hearing that LHA's position on the HOO "will not influence my vote tonight." Her actions are
constitutionally unacceptable and have "crossed the line into advocacy." (Petrovich Dev. Co., LLC
v City oj'Sacramento (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 963, 974.)
Commissioner Rai -nos should have recused herself from the Commission's hearing on October25;
because she did not, the Commission must reconsider amendments to the HOO without a
biased decisionmaker. None of these defects are cured by her disclosure at the beginning of the
hearing that she is employed by LHA.
Sincerely,
cc: Santa Ana City Council
Santa Ana Planning Commission
Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney
; i
ARDIDOIN"Ma I W"I" DRUM- 11
Commissioner Ramos Statement of Economic Impact
Forms
011400056 NFII-0056
Ptease type or print in ink.
NAME Of FILEIR (LAST)
Ramos, Isuri Sadadhy
1, Wice,, Agency, or Court
moo
Agency Name (Do niot use aicronyms)
C1'rZ OF SANTA A14A
Division, Board, Department, Distinct, ff applicable Year Position
PLAITNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONER
ii If fifing for multiple positions, I ist below or mini an, attachment, (Do not use acranyrns)
Em
2. Jurisdiction, Of Office (Check at least one box)
r-] State
[-] Killi-County ..........................................................
[91 city of Santa &na
Date livifiat Filling Received
rdog C'Vfir)W W" (D"k
2D'54 19
----------------------
MIDDLE)
Judge, IRetwedJudge, P'ro Tom Judge, o,r Court Gommiissuier
(Staiievride Junisdichoin)
F]
F-1 Other
AnnUalli period covered is January 11, 2020 through Ll Learving Office: Date, Left
-or- Decernber 31, 2,0120 (Check one dircle)
The period covered is through 0 The penod covered 9, January 1, 2020 through the dale olf
December 31, 2020, leawng office-
Assiumiling Office: Data assumed 02 1 02 12021 0 The period covered is I I — through the date
of leaving office.
CandIda W Date of Election ................................................................... and office Sought, if diifferent than Pain 1 ;...................................................................................................................................................................................
Sichedule Suimmary (must complete), 0, Total number of pages including this cover page:
Schedules attached
0 Schedule A-1 - investments - schedule attached
Schedule A-2 - Investments - schieduille allached
Schedule B - Deaf Property - scheduie aflached
EEZ
,7 Noable interests on any sch
I=
Schedule C - Income, Loans, & Business Posgiruns - schedule aftachied
Schedule D - Income - Gifts - schedide affached
0 Schedule E - Income -- Gifts -- Travel PayrWrits - schedulie attached
VAUNG ADIDPEW STREET CiTY STATE UP CODE
(Eushess or Agency Address Rommarimded Pvb6c Doojnvn(�
Santa Ana CA 92701
DAYUME TELEPHONE NUMBER
E MAIL ADDRESS
I have used all reasonable diligence in prepairing this, statminent. I have revue thiiis, statoinent and to thie best of my knowieclige the info nn aho ni contained
herein and in any attached schedules is true and complete, I acknoWledge this is a public document,
11 certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Is true and correct.
Date Signed 02/03/2021
(Ynooiih, day, ywNJ
Signature 1s 1 S�adadh Radrmos
(Fwb 0* aoiruak 54rM ppr 8ilskm1wd w4h pur ffing Dflidd)
FPP,C Form 7'OiO - Cover Page (2020/2012M
............. ..........
011400056 NFII-0056
SCHEDULE C
Income, Loanis, & �Businieiss,
Positions
(Othieir than Gifts and Travel Payrrients)
INAMIE OF SOURCE OF INCOME
1,atino Health
ADDRESS (flusk*ss Acbress A cce&bk?)
Santa Ana, CA 92701
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY„ OF SOURCE
YOUR BUSINESS POSITION
Training and Development Associate
GROSS INCOME RECEIVED No IncorM, BuSineSS PoWtIon Oinly
to $1,000 $1,0011 $10,0'Oo
El $10,001, s1m,000 OVER $100,000
CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH IIN,COME WAS, RECEIVED
ff] S,aliairy E] Spoine's or regiskered domestic partner's, inome
(For a0f employed i6use ScluxlWe A 2,)
Partnership (Loss than 10% ownership. For 10% o(groateir use
SchedWe A 2)
E-1 Sale of
(ReWparpody, cw, brot, o6c)
w3 rt repay�i,ie n t
COMMISSIon, or E] Rental In Co Me, AV eo(ch riowrre of S 8 a 000 or frwvnp
(Dav'ribe)
Other...........................................................................................................................
jarncr�be)
OW
Ramos. Isuri S
NAMIE OF SOURCE OF INCOME
The Kennedy Commir,,nsion
ADDRESS (&xrsmoas Addr*ss Accq)IaMo
Irvine, CA 92614
BUSINESS At IF AINY, OF SOURCE
YOUR BUSINESS POSITION
Policy Analyst
GROSS INCOME RECIEWED F] No Ilrwcorra Push ess Prod an Only
F1 r0 1,0,00 F1 1,0,01 $10,00,0
M $10,0011 $100,000 [ ] OVER $100,000
CONSIDERATION IFOR WHICH INCOME WAS RECEIVED
UX salary E] Spoulse's or iregUskersr9 dornesbc parineir's inwroe
(FLx seat errployed use ScheduIa A 2 )
[:]P,aaner.lhlp)Less than lO%ownerslhip. For l O%or grealor uso
SchedWe A 2.)
Sale at
(RaW prrVady, cm, hwa, eft:)
q marl. rapayuient
Comirnlssnon or n ReMall InCorre, hi each scvroo of $10,000 or more
(DosrAtwp)
F-] Other ...........................................................................................................................
(Dosofitv)
You are not required to report lloans fromi a cornry-ileircial lending institution, or any indebtedness created as part of
a retail installment or credit card transaction, niade in the lender's regular course of biLlSiness on terrns available to
mernbeirs of: the pubilic without regard to your Official status. Personal loans and loans received not in a lender's
regular course of business miust be disclosed as follows:
N,AMIE OF LENDEW IWERESTRATE "TERM (Motiths/Years,)
ADDRESS (Busmss Address A cceptabfe)
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, OF ANY, OF LEINDIER
HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD
El $10,aul $100,000
DOVER $100,000
None
SECURITY FOR LOAN
[] Nor* personm residenoe
El IReAl Property
Guarartor
Ism
cily
0)0-fitwo)
011400056 NFII-0056
Ptease type or print in ink.
NAME Of FILEIR (LAST)
Ramos, Isuri Sadadhy
1, Wice,, Agency, or Court
moo
Agency Name (Do niot use aicronyms)
C1'rZ OF SANTA A14A
Division, Board, Department, Distinct, ff applicable Year Position
PLAITNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONER
ii If fifing for multiple positions, I ist below or mini an, attachment, (Do not use acranyrns)
Em
2. Jurisdiction, Of Office (Check at least one box)
r-] State
[-] Killi-County ..........................................................
[91 city of Santa &na
Date livifiat Filling Received
rdog C'Vfir)W W" (D"k
L 122 ......
MIDDLE)
Judge, IRetwedJudge, P'ro Tom Judge, o,r Court Gommiissuier
(Staiievride Junisdichoin)
F]
F-1 Other
M AnnUalli period covered is January 11, 2020 through LJ Leaving Oli Date, Left
-or- Decernber 31, 2,0120 (Check one dircle)
The period covered is through 0 The penod covered 9, January 1, 2020 through the dale olf
December 31, 2020, leawng office -
El Assiumiling Office: Data assumed 0 The period covered is I I — through the date
of leaving office.
CandIda W Date of Election ................................................................... and office Sought, if diifferent than Pain 1 ;...................................................................................................................................................................................
Sichedule Suimmary (must complete), 0, Total number of pages including this cover page:
Schedules attached
0 Schedule A-1 - investments - schedule attached
Schedule A-2 - Investments - schieduille allached
Schedule B - Deaf Property - scheduie aflached
EEZ
,7 Noable interests on any sch
I=
Schedule C - Income, Loans, & Business Posgiruns - schedule aftachied
Schedule D - Income - Gifts - schedide affached
0 Schedule E - Income -- Gifts -- Travel PayrWrits - schedulie attached
VAUNG ADIDPEW STREET CiTY STATE UP CODE
(Eushess or Agency Address Room arimded Pvb6c Doojnvn(➢
Santa Ana CA 92701
DAYUME TELEPHONE NUMBER
E MAIL ADDRESS
I have used all reasonable diligence in prepairing this, statminent. I have revue thiiis, statoinent and to thie best of my knowieclige the info nn aho ni contained
herein and in any attached schedules is true and complete, I acknoWledge this is a public document,
11 certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Is true and correct.
Date Signed 03/311/2021
(Ynooiih, day, yi5aj
Signature 1s 1 S�adadh Radrmos
(Fwb ft aoiruak 54rM ppr 8ilskm1wd w4h pur ffing Dflidd)
FPP,C Form 7'OiO - Cover Page (2020/2012M
............. ..........
011400056 NFII-0056
SCHEDULE C
Income, Loanis, & �Businieiss,
Positions
(Othieir than Gifts and Travel Payrrients)
INAMIE OF SOURCE OF INCOME
7`1w,t Kennedy Commission
ADDRESS (flusk*ss Acbress A ccepiabk?)
Irvine, CA 92614
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY„ OF SOURCE
YOUR BUSINESS POSITION
Policy Analyst
GROSS INCOME RECEIVED No Incom BuSinm PoWtIon Oinly
V wo $1,000 $1,0011 $10,0o
Ex] $10,001, sim,000 OVER $100,000
CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH IIN,COME WAS, RECEIVED
ff] Salary E] Spoine's or regiskered domestic partner's, inome
(For a0f employed i6use ScluxlWe A 2,)
Partnership (Loss than 10% ownership. For 10qreateir use
SchedWe A 2)
E-1 Sale of
(ReWparpody, cw, brot, o6c)
wart repay�i,ie n t
COMMISSIon, or E] Rental In Co Me, AV eo(ch riowtv of S 8 a 000 or frwxrp
(Dascribu)
Other...........................................................................................................................
jarncrrbe)
OW
Ramos. Isuri S
NAMIE OF SOURCE OF INCOME
L,atino Health Aaa,,esss
ADDRESS (&xrsmoas Addr*ss Accq)IaMo
Sarnia Ana, CA 92701
BUSINESS At IF AINY, OF SOURCE
YOUR BUSINESS POSITION
Training and Development Associate
GROSS INCOME RECIEWED F] No IInoorre Business Posftn Only
F1 0 1,0,00 [X] 1,0,01 $10,00,0
[-] 10,0011 $1100,000 [ ] OVER $100,000
CONSIDERATION IFOR WHICH INCOME WAS RECEIVED
UX salary E] Spoulse's or irngiskerss9 dornesbc paidneir's in me
(I'm seff errployed use ScheduIa A 2.)
[:]P,aaner.lhlp)Less thanlO%own erslhip. For l(D%orgrealoruso
SchedWe A 2.)
Sale at
(RaW prrVady, cm, hwa, eft:)
rapayuient
Comirnlssnon or n ReMall InCorre, hi each scvroo of $10,000 or more
(DosrAtwp)
F-] Other ...........................................................................................................................
(Dosofit*)
You are not required to report lloans fromi a cornry-ileircial lending institution, or any indebtedness created as part of
a retail installment or credit card transaction, niade in the lender's regular course of biLlSiness on terrns available to
mernbeirs of: the pubilic without regard to your Official status. Personal loans and loans received not in a lender's
regular course of business miust be disclosed as follows:
N,AMIE OF LENDEW INTERESTRATE "TERM (Motiths/Years,)
ADDRESS (Busmss Address A cceptabfe�
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, iF ANY, OF LEINDIER
HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD
El $10,aul $100,000
DOVER $100,000
None
SECURITY FOR LOAN
[] Nor* personal residence
El IReAl Property
Guarar,sir
Ism
cily
0)0-fitwo)
�ffff 01111048=1ma-11M I
MAN= , 111, A
011400056 NFII-0056
Ptease type or print in ink.
NAME Of FILEIR (LAST)
Ramos, Isuri Sadadhy
1, Mice, , Agency, or Court
moo
Agency Name (Do not use acronyrns)
C1'rZ OF SANTA A14A
Division, Board, Department, Distinct, d applicable Your Posiflon
PLAITNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONER
ii If fifing for rnultiple poslifions, I ist below or oni an, aftachment, (Do not use acranyins)
Em
2. Jurisdiction, Of Office (Check at least one box)
r-] State
[-] Killi-County ..........................................................
[91 city of Santa &na
I Type of Statement (Check at least one box)
AnnuaLThe period covered Is January 11, 2018, through
December 311, 20118
-or-
The, period oovered is — — — through
December 31, 20,18
El Assiuming Office: Date assumed ----- J
[] Cand ida W Date of Election
Date initial Filing
IReceived
tho nrr
3/3 VA" Ni
'13, 93 OF,
MIDDLE)
Jludge or Court Cornmissioner (Stateside JuirM!icti,on)
County of
F-1 tither
Leaving Office: Date, Left 2019
(Clifreck one circle),
c?O The period covered is January 1, 20,18, through the date
Of
leaving office,
0 The period covered is I I — through the date
of leaving office.
and office Sought, if different than Pain 1 ;
Sichedule Suimmary (must complete), 0, Total number of pages including this cover page:
Schedules attached
0 Schedule A-1 - investments - schedule attached
Schediule A-2 - Investments - scheduille attached
Schedule B - Peal Property - scheduie attached
EEZ
,7 Noable interests on any sch
I=
Schedule C - Income, Loans, & Business Posgions - xhedule aftached
Schedule D - Income - Gifts - schedide affached
0 Schedule E - Income -- Gifts -- Travel PayrWrits - schedule attached
VAUNG ADIDPEW STREET CiTY STATE UP CODE
(Eushess or Agency Address Rommarimded Pvb6c Docinvn(i
Santa Ana CA 92701
DAYUME TELEPHONE NUMBER
E MAIL ADDRESS
I have used all reasonable diligence in prepairing this, statminent. I have reviewed this statei and to the best of my knowWge the info nn aho ni contained
herein and in any attached schedules is true and romplete, I acknoWledge this is a public document,
11 certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of Califflornlai that the foregioling Is true and correct.
Date Signed 03/311/2021
(Ynooiih, day, yi5aj
Signature 1s i Sadadh Radrmos
(Fwb ft aoiruak 54rM ppr 8ilskm1wd w4h pur ffing Dflidd)
FPPC Form 70,O (20118120119)
li Advice Email: advice@fppc.ca.gov
F1101i Toll-Froe Heli 86,61275-3772 www.fppe.ca.gov
011400056 NFII-0056
SCHEDULE C
Income, Loanis, & �Businieiss,
Positions
(Othieir than Gifts and Travel Payrrients)
INAMIE OF SOURCE OF INCOME
Tfict Kennedy Commiesdon
ADDRESS (flusimss Acbress A ccepiabk?)
Irvine, CA 92614
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY„ OF SOURCE
YOUR BUSINESS POSITION
GROSS INCOME RECEIVED No InCorm BuSines% PoWtIon Oinly
V wo $1,000 $1,0011 $10,0i Oo
Ex] $10,001, sim,000 OVER $100,000
CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH IIN,COME WAS, RECEIVED
ff] Salary E] Spoine's or regiskered domestic partner's, inome
(For a0f employed use ScluxlWe A 2 )
Partnership (Loss than 10% ownership. For 10% o(greater use
SchedWe A 2)
E-1 Sale of
(ReWparpody, cN, brot, o6c)
w3 rt repayni,ie n t
COMMISSIon, or E] Rental In Co Me, AV eo(ch riowtv of S B a 000 or frwxrp
(Dascribu)
Other...........................................................................................................................
jarncr�be)
OW
Ramos. Isuri S
NAMIE OF SOURCE OF INCOME
ADDRESS (&xrsiner.s.q Addr*ss Accq)IaMo
BUSINESS ACTIVITY IF ANY, OF SOURCE
YOUR BUSINESS POSITION
GROSS INCOME RECIEWED F] No Ilrworsnre BusIness Posftn Only
F1 $500 $1,000 F1 $1,0,01 $10,00,0
[-] $10,0011 $1100,000 [ ] OVER $100,000
CONSIDERATION IFOR WHICH INCOME WAS RECEIVED
0 salary E] Spoulse's or iregUskernd dornesbc paidneir's in roe
(Fa self errployed use Schedule A 2 )
[:]P,aaner.lhlp(Le%sthanlO%ownerslhip. Forl(D%orgrealoruso
SchedWe Al 2.)
Sale at
(RaW prrVady, cm, hwa, eft )
q marl. rapquient
Comirnlssnon or n ReMall InCorre, hi each scvroo of $10,000 or more
(DosrAtwp)
F-] Other ...........................................................................................................................
(Dosofit*)
You are not required to report lloans fromi a cornry-ileircial lending institution, or any indebtedness created as part of
a retail installment or credit card transaction, niade in the lender's regular course of biLlSiness on terrns available to
mernbeirs of: the pubilic without regard to your Official status. Personal loans and loans received not in a lender's
regular course of business miust be disclosed as follows:
N,AMIE OF LENDEW IWERESTRATE "TERM (Motiths/Years)
ADDRESS (Busmss Address A cceptabfe�
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, OF ANY, OF LEINDIER
HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD
El $1,00, $10,(),00
El $10,aul $100,000
DOVER $100,000
None
SECURITY FOR LOAN
[] Nor* personal resideroe
El IReAl Property
Guarartor
Ism
cily
0)0-fitwo)
FPPC Form 700 (2018120119), $ch. C
FPPC Advice Email.- advice@1ppc.ca.g0v
FPIPC Toll -Free He$phne: 8661275-3772 www.fppic.ca,gov
Councilwoman Phan Statement of Economic Impact
Forms
011400056 NFII-0056
Ptease type or print in ink.
NAME Of FIILEIR (WT)
PHAN, THAI VIET
1, Office, Agency, or Court
moo
Agency Name (Do niot use ai
CI'rZ OF SANTA A14A
Division, Board, Department, Distinct, ff applicable Year Position
cilrY COUNCIE, COUNCILICIMBER
ii If fifing for multiple positions, I ist below or oni an, attachment, (Do not use acranyrns)
Agency: *SEE AWACHED FOR ADDITIONAL POSITIONS
2. Jurisdiction, Of Office (Check at least one box)
r-] State
[-] Killi-County ..........................................................
[91 city of Santa &na
Date livifiat Filling Received
r&ng UfloW Us" (D"k
0 T �2811/ i
I '�4 �"T 41 1� 16
----- ----------------
MIDDLE)
Judge, IRetwedJudge, P'ro Tom Judge, o,r Court Gommiissuier
(Staiievride Junisdichoin)
F]
F-1 Other
M AnnUalli period covered is January 11, 2020 through LJ Leaving Oli Date, Left
-or- Decernber 31, 2,0120 (Check one dircle)
The period covered is through 0 The penod covered 9, January 1, 2020 through the dale elf
December 31, 2020, leawng office -
El Assiumiling Office: Data assumed 0 The period covered is I I — through the date
of leaving office.
CandIda W Date of Election ................................................................... and office Sought, if diifferent than Pain 1 ;...................................................................................................................................................................................
Schedule Suimmary (must complete), 0, Total number of pages including this cover page: --- L—
Schedules attached
0 Schedule A-1 - investments - schedule attached
Schedule A-2 - Investments - schieduille allached
Schedule B - Deaf Propetly - scheduie aflached
EEZ
,7 Noable interests on any sch
I=
Schedule C - Income, Loans, & Business Posgiruns - schedule aftachied
Schedule D - Income - Gifts - schedide affached
0 Schedule E - Income -- Gifts -- Travel PayrWrits - schedulie attached
VAUNG ADIDPESS STREET CiTY STATE UP CODE
(Eushess or Agency Address Rommarimded Pvb6c Doojnvn(�
Santa Ana CA 92704
DAYUME TELEPHONE NUMBER
E MAIL ADDRESS
I have used all reasonable dili ence in prepairing this, statminent. I have rei thiiis, statoinent and to thie best of my knowieclige the info nn aho ni contained
herein and in any attached schedules is true and romplete, I acknoWledge this is a public document,
11 certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Is true and correct.
Date Signed 01/28/2021
(Ynooiih, day, yi5aj
Signature.......... TIHI.A.".....".,Vll'll'IE'l.T."....",Pl"HIIAI.N.".l,""""""""."'l,""""""""""l,""""""""""l,"""."'l,""""""""."'l,""""""""""l,""""""""""l,"""."'.,I
(Fwb ft aoiruak 50re&d p'pr8bkm1*rd w4h pur ffing Dflidd)
FPP,C Form 7'OiO - Cover Page (2020/2012M
............. ..........
O1140OO56 NFI-1 -0056
COVER P'AGE FAJR P
Expand�eid Stateiment Attachment w
TAAI VIET P'A-AN
* This table lists all vasitions includina the prinary position listed in the office, Agency. or Court section of the covpr Faqe.
Agency
CITY OF SP14TA P14A
Dlivision/Board/Dept/Diistrict
PLANNING COMMISSION
Position
COMMISSIONER
Type of Statement
Puinual 1/l/2020 - 12/31/2020
CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY COUNCIL
CANDIDATE
Annual 1/l/2020 - 12/31/2020
CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY COU1,11CIL
COUNCILMEMBER
Annual 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020
1 1 6 . . , I I K A 6
011400056 NFII-0056
SCHEDULE B
Interests in Real Property
(Indkiding Rental �ncomie)
o ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER OR STREET ADDRESS
2680 West, Segerstrom Avenue
CITY
Santa Ana
FAIR MARKET VALUE IF APPLICABLE, Lis r DATE':
F-] $2,000 $10,00,13
-0/1 .1 20
F- $1010,000 ................
$10,1301
[—X] $100,001 $1,000,0ACQUIRED100 DISPOSED
E1.] over si,000mo
NATURE OF INTEREST
Owners h ilp/Deed of TF-rust "] Easonvint
Leasehdd F-1 -
Yrs, reniah,Onq other
IF RENTAL PROPERTY, IROSS III COME RECEIVED
so $499 F] $500 $1,0I00 [-] sl,00i $10.010,0
❑$10,0101 s1ol1I,o0a ❑ OVER $100,000
SOURCES OF RENTAL INOOMEIf you own a 10I% or gireater
interest, fist the rmme of each termnt that is a sIngIe source of
income of $10,000 or more,
❑ Namesl
* ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER OR STREET ADDRESS
UTY
FAIR! MARKET VALUE
E] S2,000 $1 0,D00
F] $10,1001 $1100,000
�F] $100,001 $1,0100,000
F1 Over $1,000,000
NATURE OF INTEREST
[:] OwnershjpDad 04 Truest
71 Leasalhaid,
DF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE:
------- i ............... j2_0 - -------- / ............... 1-2 0
ACQUIRED DISPOSED
nl Easement
E]
yrs, rernairflIxg 004(mr
IF RENTAL PROPERTY, GROSS INCOME RECEIVED
�F] $0 $4,99 D $11,00 $1,0001 F] $1,DO1 $10,0010
El va,00s siloo,000 [:] OVER $100,00)
SOURCES OF RENTAL INICOME: If you own a 10%, or greater
k-derest, list the name of each tenant that Is a singW source of
Inoonne of $10,0010 or more,
[I Nom
You cure not reqUlred to repoirt loans frorn a commercial lendlinig institution imade in the lender's regular course of
bus,iness on, terms available to mernbers of thublic without regard to yoIuir offici4l statuis. Personal loans and
loans received not in, a lender's regulair course of business must be disclosed as follows:
NAMIE OF LENDER* INAMIE OF LENDER'
AIDDRESS (Busirviss Ack1ress Accellabhj) ADDRESS (Bimskiesss Address Acerptabie)
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IIIF ANY, OF LENIIDEIR BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IIF ANY, OF LEINDIER
INTEREST RATE TERM (MonthsfYeafs)
% F] None
HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD
s5w si,000 sl,00i $10,010,0I
$10,001 $100,0100 OVER $100,000
Guarardoir, If applIcable
IN rERESr RATE TERM (MontWYears)
% F] None
IhDIGu HEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD
$51)o $1,000 $1,0101 $110,000
$10,001 $100,0()1n OVER $100,000
71 Guarantor, If applicable
FPPC Form 700 Schedluile IB (2020)202W
011400056 NFII-0056
SCHEDULE C
Income, Loanis, & �Businieiss,
Positions
(Othieir than Gifts and Travel Payrrients)
INAMIE OF SOURCE OF INCOME
Rutan & Tuc:kctr, LL,P
ADDRESS (flusirms Acbress A cce&bk?)
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
YOUR BUSINESS POSITION
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
GROSS INCOME RECEIVED No Incom BuSinim PoWtIon Only
V wo $1,000 $1,0011 $10,0Oo
El $10,001, s1m,000 OVER $100,000
CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH IIN,COME WAS, RECEIVED
ff] S,aliairy E] Spume's or regiskered domestic partner's, inome
(For a0f employed use ScluxlWe A 2 )
Partnership (Loss than 10% ownership. For 10% agroateir use
SchedWe A 2)
E-1 Sale of
(ReWparpody, cN, brot, o6c)
II aaaun repayn,ient
commission, or E] Rental In Co mie, AV eoch riowtv of S 8 a 000 or frwxrp
(Dascribu)
Other...........................................................................................................................
jarncr�be)
NAMIE OF SOURCE OF INCOME
ADDRESS (&xrsmer.mq Addr*ss Accq)IaMo
BUSINESS ACTIVITY IF ANY, OF SOURCE
YOUR BUSINESS POSITION
GROSS INCOME RECIEWED F] No IInoorrra Business Powtion Only
F1 r0 $1,000 F1 1,0,01 $10,00,0
[-] 10,0011 $1100,000 [ ] OVER $100,000
CONSIDERATION IFOR WHICH INCOME WAS RECEIVED
0 Salary E] Spoulse's or iregUskasrnr9 domesbc paidneir's mwme
(For self errployed use Schedule A 2.)
[:]P,aaner.lhlp)Less than lO%owner slhip. For l(D%orgreat oruso
SchedWe A 2.)
Sale at
(RaW prrVady, cm, hma, eft:)
oan rapayuient
Comimlssnon or n ReMall InCom,e, im each scvroo of $10,000 or more
(Do srAtwp)
F-] Other ...........................................................................................................................
(Dosofitv)
You are not required to report lloans fromi a cornry-ileircial lending institution, or any indebtedness created as part of
a retail installment or credit card transaction, niade in the lender's regular course of biLlSiness on terrns available to
mernbeirs of: the pubilic without regard to your Official status. Personal loans and loans received not in a lender's
regular course of business miust be disclosed as follows:
N,AMIE OF LENDEW INTEEST` RATE "TERM (Months/Years)
ADDRESS (Busmss Address A cceptabfe)
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, OF ANY, OF LEINDIER
HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD
El $10,aul $100,000
DOVER $100,000
None
SECURITY FOR LOAN
[] Nor* personal residenoe
El IReAl Property
Guarartor
Ism
icily
0)0-fitwo)
�ffff 01111048=1ma-zim I
MA32m m 111, A
Rutan and Tucker Builders and Land Developers Team
l
12/2/21, 3:21 PM
Builders and Land Developers - Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Rutan offers the highest quality legal services to the building and land development industry to
ensure our clients succeed in the complex real estate market.
Our Builders and Land Developers industry is comprised of a team of highly qualified attorneys who
specialize in assisting clients with due diligence, acquisitions, entitlements, construction, and all
related matters for commercial, industrial, mixed use and residential projects. We have combined the
talents and experience of top echelon transactional attorneys and litigators from a variety of practice
areas to provide our clients with the highest quality and most comprehensive legal coverage for all
their building and land development needs. Our attorneys know the building industry and have
worked with builders to successfully deliver projects for decades, including routinely guiding a
project from t e due diligence/land acquisition stage, through the entitlement process - including
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the local political process - and
ultimately to the sale or leasing of the finished product. Should litigation arise following project
approval, we have experienced trial attorneys that are uniquely equipped to protect the interests of
our clients. We are uniquely suited to assist clients with any and all business, legal, or regulatory
matters that may arise.
f",;
f ley A, /, c ;, l a(,,,,i
J",;
https://www.rutan.com/industries/builders-land-developers/ 1 /6
12/2/21, 3:21 PM
Builders and and Developers - Rutan & Tucker, LLP
C O i y //d/I " C
Asa od a Lc;
Emphp=W,
(7144 3381814
m§ vCa
in ri in
r �, n c; 1,
Land Use ard EnMynoni,
(M) 61=9
EmaH V C a
<a"I ryn 2,' 20min
"'a 2 n » I/
LaTabon and
CM)3381887
Ema§ vCa
V§iam F"
"'? 2 n » I/
LATYKan and Kid
(650)
vCa
I e Key Fa ra n a, J i,,,
Acsockh",
Ond Usn HrA EnhArnow",
EmaH v C a
h"s&mw rutan.mm/i nd ustries/beer and-deve lope rs/ 2/6
12/2/21, 3:21 PM
19111 1
Builders and Land Developers - Rutan & Tucker, LLP
A in 1,1'/,,, r in, c
C7'4) G4"i-3452
i' I'I"
n J, G o c in
C7 " 4), 6 "," 2- 4 ",`9 9
i a i VC a r "'I"
J/ U' i 11 e K as L a in
II/,),'/'/5,/',O) 320,-"iSOG
n) aH V "; a I" """j
�'j r
'n rin r; I I 1-�
"j
('714) 6 40 3 4 15
i V I" "r/I
Lz,'� in m in
j
https://www.rutan.com/industries/buiIders-land-developers/
3/6
12/2/21, 3:21 PM Builders and and Developers - Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Ema§ V C a
JacqueHne L. War
AsocAc
d E » 1: ,Cama3 m ace
Fw/
CM) S4034m
EmaH v C a rici,
WHY"i FdMeehar:i
P a q n » i,
k»2E»m ZCcdcc
(T4) GIPM7
EmaH Wa rd
Gerard ""Ol.
"Oftoi-iey
P a A
LAjadon
n,-- i,
and
FW,'d
CM) 33SISS7
EmaH v C a rici,
Steven A. WOWS
P a A n,--
WpHon and FWd
M416403448
rr'i a § V C a
https://www.rutan.com/industries/buiIders-land-developers/ 56
12/2/21, 3:21 PM
Builders and Land Developers - Rutan & Tucker, LLP
(04) 66&4620
EmaH Ww"'r/I
Maw
CmyouAo and Acw1hu,
MQ 64P34W/"//5
I ThInd
Maw
GovonnwN and
RuguNwl
('714) 338-1819
EmaH Waid
Wbock&
GovonnwN and
RuguNwl
CM) G40340/5'
EmaH Wai,'d
Ash key Vern ic
(Vaccara)
LAI, don and Fh,"d
(T4) 6604685
EmaH V C a I" r"i"
https://www.rutan.com/industries/buiIders-land-developers/ 5/6
12/2/21, 3:21 PM
Builders and Land Developers - Rutan & Tucker, LLP
I"
https://www.rutan.com/industries/buiIders-land-developers/ 6/6
December 1, 2021
Fair Political Practices Commission
Enforcement Division
1102 Q Street, Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95811
Also sent via email to .c..oinn„I!.g ntj�fl .1I. ;oL2,g2y
Santa Ana City Clerk
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Also sent via email to .grainzirt:giroraiwg
Santa Ana City Attorney
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
� Also sent via emailscary
to.............................................................. R....................................................................................
Regarding: Complaint regarding Conflict of Interest by City Councilwoman Thai Phan
To Whom it May Concern,
On November 16, 2021, the Santa Ana City Council considered the first reading of the amendment to
the HOO.
I ttl :...; yp. utu.I „Lll. IWI C ✓IWIIWIJ C (Santa Ana Council Nov. 16 The video of the hearing can be found at ,
2021-English, published by City of Santa Ana).
At Hour 6, minute 35, Councilwoman Thai Phan dismisses an alleged conflict of interest of a City
Planning Commissioner. A practicing City Attorney herself, Phan apparently doesn't understand that a
conflict of interest is not excused based on an item being legislative rather than quasi-judicial. There is
simply no premise for the concept that legislative acts do not have conflicts of interest and to argue such
is to turn the entire Government Code section on its head.
Councilmember Thai Phan is an attorney at the law firm of Rutan & Tucker which represents many
residential developers directly affected by the HOO amendments. She has an un-waivable conflict of
interest which prohibits her from participating on the HOO item. Conflicts of interest do not say that a
decision maker with a conflict of interest can only participate if they vote against the interests of their
clients, it is a total bar to participation.
It would be unbelievable for Phan to argue that her firm's numerous developer clients would
hypothetically have nothing to do with her cutting the fee to $0 to benefit her clients, but she appears
to believe that voting to increase the fee (and adding a completely illegal condition of mandating "skilled
and trained workforce" for all housing beginning in 2025) has no economic impact on her firm's clients.
Attached to this complaint is a print out of the Rutan & Tucker website showing that Thai Phan is a
member of the firm's "Builders and Land Developers Team" page. Also attached is a copy of her
Statement of Economic Interests form. While it is arguable whether a lawyer may list ONLY their law
firm as a source of income over $10,000 and thus shield their actual clients from disclosure to the public,
it is simply not believable that Thai Phan derives income from representing builders and developers in
the community. This source of income is a total bar to her participation on matters such as the HOO
amendment and, while she may argue that it is a Ibroadlly applied ordinance in the City, the facts acre that
a Venn: diagram showing the entities subject to the HOBO and Rutan andl Tucker's Builder and Developer
clients would be largely the same group of people.
Rutan and Tucker is a regional law firm who represents many Orange County clients. Rutan and Tuck
has practice areas such as corporate and tax, or employment, or intellectual property which are clear
not a conflict of interest for the firm, and Phan on a land use matterbpAukW Phan works =Ahe
which services builders and developers and i�s participating in a municipal question dire,ct�ly related Ito
her practice area and likely, cl�ients.
To put an even more specific point on the matter, Councilimember Phan's colleague at Rlutan & Tucker,
Peter Howell, represents Dallas -based reail estate developer Centennial in the rei-eintitlement of the 49,
acre, 1.13m square foot, Santa Ana Main Place Mall. Centennial proposes to redevelop the Mall with
over 1,900 dwelling units in what will surely amount to a approximate $1 billion investment, The impact
of Councilmember Phan's deciision on the HOO will have a multi -million dopact to Centennial.
There was a specific question as to whether "vested'," projects were subject to the HOO amendments,
the outcome of which has a dect economic impact on, Centennial, which hais a direct economic
connection with, P'hain's employer. It defies logic (not to mention the Government Code and case law)
that! Councilmember Phan would be allowed to not only participate, but lead, the HOO discussion given
the scope of thiis impact to Rutan's c!lients.
The code clearly states that to avoid actuail bias or the appearance of possi4fle improprieties ' a publi@
official with a disqualifying conflict of interestin a government decision must be prohibited from
participating in the decision.
The FPPC outlines five types of interests that may result in disqualification. Of these, the "income"
interest is clearly met by Ramos. "An individual or an entity from whom the official has received income
or promised income aggregating to $500 or more in the previous 12 months."
Please see the attached Form 700's filed by Councilwoman Phan. The test goes on to see whether the
financial impact of the decision is foreseeable and significant enough to material. In this case, the facts
speak for themselves. The amendments to the HOO are significant to current and future builders and
developers who may be or are current clients of Phan's.
Potential State Law Violations:
1. City Councilwoman Thai Phan likely violated the code by voting on the HOO due to the number
of economically affected clients who are the sources of income to her employer Rutan and
Tucker and to her team within the firm.
Potential City of Santa Ana Violations:
Councilwoman Thai Phan's participation in the November 16, 2021 hearing likely violated Santa
Ana Municipal Code section 2-105. First, Phan should have "absented" [herself] from the room
where the meeting was held during debate and voting on the matter. Second, per the code,
Phan should have divulged any "remote interest" before voting. Neither of these occurred and
the City Attorney cannot "sweep it all under the rug" by stating that there is no financial
interest. This opinion violates the latter part of code section 2-105.
As stated previously, the California State Fair Political Practices Commission is being contacted because
the complaint filed with the Mayor and City Attorney were not taken seriously. Additionally, the
investigative authority of the Commission is ideally situated to obtain information regarding the conflicts
of interest alleged herein.
A hearing for the second reading of the HOO amendments is scheduled for Tuesday December 7, 2021
beginning at 5:00 pm. It is requested that FPPC staff alert the City of Santa Ana to the conflicts of
interest before this meeting occurs.
We have referred this matter to an attorney and reserve the right to challenge these decisions.
Sincerely,
a e--�
Alex Lee
On behalf of numerous concerned Santa Ana
residents
a....�".%�.1..�".�.d.2:..:. ...I..lrvratral..! .2.!..l..:.com
Enc: Councilwoman Phan Statement of Economic Impact Forms
Rutan and Tucker Builders and Land Developers Team page
cc: Rutan &Tucker Managing Partner
011400056 NFII-0056
Ptease type or print in ink.
NAME Of FIILEIR (WT)
PHAN, THAI VIET
1, Office, Agency, or Court
moo
Agency Name (Do niot use ai
CI'rZ OF SANTA A14A
Division, Board, Department, Distinct, ff applicable Year Position
cilrY COUNCIE, COUNCILICIMBER
ii If fifing for multiple positions, I ist below or oni an, attachment, (Do not use acranyrns)
Agency: *SEE AWACHED FOR ADDITIONAL POSITIONS
2. Jurisdiction, Of Office (Check at least one box)
r-] State
[-] Killi-County ..........................................................
[91 city of Santa &na
Date livifiat Filling Received
r&ng UfloW Us" (D"k
0 T �2811/ i
I '�4 �"T 41 1� 16
----- ----------------
MIDDLE)
Judge, IRetwedJudge, P'ro Tom Judge, o,r Court Gommiissuier
(Staiievride Junisdichoin)
F]
F-1 Other
M AnnUalli period covered is January 11, 2020 through LJ Leaving Oli Date, Left
-or- Decernber 31, 2,0120 (Check one dircle)
The period covered is through 0 The penod covered 9, January 1, 2020 through the dale elf
December 31, 2020, leawng office -
El Assiumiling Office: Data assumed 0 The period covered is I I — through the date
of leaving office.
CandIda W Date of Election ................................................................... and office Sought, if diifferent than Pain 1 ;...................................................................................................................................................................................
Schedule Suimmary (must complete), 0, Total number of pages including this cover page: --- L—
Schedules attached
0 Schedule A-1 - investments - schedule attached
Schedule A-2 - Investments - schieduille allached
Schedule B - Deaf Propetly - scheduie aflached
EEZ
,7 Noable interests on any sch
I=
Schedule C - Income, Loans, & Business Posgiruns - schedule aftachied
Schedule D - Income - Gifts - schedide affached
0 Schedule E - Income -- Gifts -- Travel PayrWrits - schedulie attached
VAUNG ADIDPESS STREET CiTY STATE UP CODE
(Eushess or Agency Address Rommarimded Pvb6c Doojnvn(�
Santa Ana CA 92704
DAYUME TELEPHONE NUMBER
E MAIL ADDRESS
I have used all reasonable dili ence in prepairing this, statminent. I have rei thiiis, statoinent and to thie best of my knowieclige the info nn aho ni contained
herein and in any attached schedules is true and romplete, I acknoWledge this is a public document,
11 certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Is true and correct.
Date Signed 01/28/2021
(Ynooiih, day, yi5aj
Signature.......... TIHI.A.".....".,Vll'll'IE'l.T."....",Pl"HIIAI.N.".l,""""""""."'l,""""""""""l,""""""""""l,"""."'l,""""""""."'l,""""""""""l,""""""""""l,"""."'.,I
(Fwb ft aoiruak 50re&d p'pr8bkm1*rd w4h pur ffing Dflidd)
FPP,C Form 7'OiO - Cover Page (2020/2012M
............. ..........
O1140OO56 NFI-1 -0056
COVER P'AGE FAJR P
Expand�eid Stateiment Attachment w
TAAI VIET P'A-AN
* This table lists all vasitions includina the prinary position listed in the office, Agency. or Court section of the covpr Faqe.
Agency
CITY OF SP14TA P14A
Dlivision/Board/Dept/Diistrict
PLANNING COMMISSION
Position
COMMISSIONER
Type of Statement
Puinual 1/l/2020 - 12/31/2020
CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY COUNCIL
CANDIDATE
Annual 1/l/2020 - 12/31/2020
CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY COU1,11CIL
COUNCILMEMBER
Annual 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020
1 1 6 . . , I I K A 6
011400056 NFII-0056
SCHEDULE B
Interests in Real Property
(Indkiding Rental �ncomie)
o ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER OR STREET ADDRESS
2680 West, Segerstrom Avenue
CITY
Santa Ana
FAIR MARKET VALUE IF APPLICABLE, Lis r DATE':
F-] $2,000 $10,00,13
-0/1 .1 20
F- $1010,000 ................
$10,1301
[—X] $100,001 $1,000,0ACQUIRED100 DISPOSED
E1.] over si,000mo
NATURE OF INTEREST
Owners h ilp/Deed of TF-rust "] Easonvint
Leasehdd F-1 -
Yrs, reniah,Onq other
IF RENTAL PROPERTY, IROSS III COME RECEIVED
so $499 F] $500 $1,0I00 [-] sl,00i $10.010,0
❑$10,0101 s1ol1I,o0a ❑ OVER $100,000
SOURCES OF RENTAL INOOMEIf you own a 10I% or gireater
interest, fist the rmme of each termnt that is a sIngIe source of
income of $10,000 or more,
❑ Namesl
* ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER OR STREET ADDRESS
UTY
FAIR! MARKET VALUE
E] S2,000 $1 0,D00
F] $10,1001 $1100,000
�F] $100,001 $1,0100,000
F1 Over $1,000,000
NATURE OF INTEREST
[:] OwnershjpDad 04 Truest
71 Leasalhaid,
DF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE:
------- i ............... j2_0 - -------- / ............... 1-2 0
ACQUIRED DISPOSED
nl Easement
E]
yrs, rernairflIxg 004(mr
IF RENTAL PROPERTY, GROSS INCOME RECEIVED
�F] $0 $4,99 D $11,00 $1,0001 F] $1,DO1 $10,0010
El va,00s siloo,000 [:] OVER $100,00)
SOURCES OF RENTAL INICOME: If you own a 10%, or greater
k-derest, list the name of each tenant that Is a singW source of
Inoonne of $10,0010 or more,
[I Nom
You cure not reqUlred to repoirt loans frorn a commercial lendlinig institution imade in the lender's regular course of
bus,iness on, terms available to mernbers of thublic without regard to yoIuir offici4l statuis. Personal loans and
loans received not in, a lender's regulair course of business must be disclosed as follows:
NAMIE OF LENDER* INAMIE OF LENDER'
AIDDRESS (Busirviss Ack1ress Accellabhj) ADDRESS (Bimskiesss Address Acerptabie)
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IIIF ANY, OF LENIIDEIR BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IIF ANY, OF LEINDIER
INTEREST RATE TERM (MonthsfYeafs)
% F] None
HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD
s5w si,000 sl,00i $10,010,0I
$10,001 $100,0100 OVER $100,000
Guarardoir, If applIcable
IN rERESr RATE TERM (MontWYears)
% F] None
IhDIGu HEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD
$51)o $1,000 $1,0101 $110,000
$10,001 $100,0()1n OVER $100,000
71 Guarantor, If applicable
FPPC Form 700 Schedluile IB (2020)202W
011400056 NFII-0056
SCHEDULE C
Income, Loanis, & �Businieiss,
Positions
(Othieir than Gifts and Travel Payrrients)
INAMIE OF SOURCE OF INCOME
Rutan & Tuc:kctr, LL,P
ADDRESS (flusirms Acbress A cce&bk?)
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE
YOUR BUSINESS POSITION
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
GROSS INCOME RECEIVED No Incom BuSinim PoWtIon Only
V wo $1,000 $1,0011 $10,0Oo
El $10,001, s1m,000 OVER $100,000
CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH IIN,COME WAS, RECEIVED
ff] S,aliairy E] Spume's or regiskered domestic partner's, inome
(For a0f employed use ScluxlWe A 2 )
Partnership (Loss than 10% ownership. For 10% agroateir use
SchedWe A 2)
E-1 Sale of
(ReWparpody, cN, brot, o6c)
II aaaun repayn,ient
commission, or E] Rental In Co mie, AV eoch riowtv of S 8 a 000 or frwxrp
(Dascribu)
Other...........................................................................................................................
jarncr�be)
NAMIE OF SOURCE OF INCOME
ADDRESS (&xrsmer.mq Addr*ss Accq)IaMo
BUSINESS ACTIVITY IF ANY, OF SOURCE
YOUR BUSINESS POSITION
GROSS INCOME RECIEWED F] No IInoorrra Business Powtion Only
F1 r0 $1,000 F1 1,0,01 $10,00,0
[-] 10,0011 $1100,000 [ ] OVER $100,000
CONSIDERATION IFOR WHICH INCOME WAS RECEIVED
0 Salary E] Spoulse's or iregUskasrnr9 domesbc paidneir's mwme
(For self errployed use Schedule A 2.)
[:]P,aaner.lhlp)Less than lO%owner slhip. For l(D%orgreat oruso
SchedWe A 2.)
Sale at
(RaW prrVady, cm, hma, eft:)
oan rapayuient
Comimlssnon or n ReMall InCom,e, im each scvroo of $10,000 or more
(Do srAtwp)
F-] Other ...........................................................................................................................
(Dosofitv)
You are not required to report lloans fromi a cornry-ileircial lending institution, or any indebtedness created as part of
a retail installment or credit card transaction, niade in the lender's regular course of biLlSiness on terrns available to
mernbeirs of: the pubilic without regard to your Official status. Personal loans and loans received not in a lender's
regular course of business miust be disclosed as follows:
N,AMIE OF LENDEW INTEEST` RATE "TERM (Months/Years)
ADDRESS (Busmss Address A cceptabfe)
BUSINESS ACTIVITY, OF ANY, OF LEINDIER
HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD
El $10,aul $100,000
DOVER $100,000
None
SECURITY FOR LOAN
[] Nor* personal residenoe
El IReAl Property
Guarartor
Ism
icily
0)0-fitwo)
�ffff 01111048=1ma-zim I
MA32m m 111, A
12/2/21, 3:21 PM
Builders and Land Developers - Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Rutan offers the highest quality legal services to the building and land development industry to
ensure our clients succeed in the complex real estate market.
Our Builders and Land Developers industry is comprised of a team of highly qualified attorneys who
specialize in assisting clients with due diligence, acquisitions, entitlements, construction, and all
related matters for commercial, industrial, mixed use and residential projects. We have combined the
talents and experience of top echelon transactional attorneys and litigators from a variety of practice
areas to provide our clients with the highest quality and most comprehensive legal coverage for all
their building and land development needs. Our attorneys know the building industry and have
worked with builders to successfully deliver projects for decades, including routinely guiding a
project from t e due diligence/land acquisition stage, through the entitlement process - including
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the local political process - and
ultimately to the sale or leasing of the finished product. Should litigation arise following project
approval, we have experienced trial attorneys that are uniquely equipped to protect the interests of
our clients. We are uniquely suited to assist clients with any and all business, legal, or regulatory
matters that may arise.
f",;
f ley A, /, c ;, l a(,,,,i
J",;
https://www.rutan.com/industries/builders-land-developers/ 1 /6
12/2/21, 3:21 PM
Builders and and Developers - Rutan & Tucker, LLP
C O i y //d/I " C
Asa od a Lc;
Emphp=W,
(7144 3381814
m§ vCa
in ri in
r �, n c; 1,
Land Use ard EnMynoni,
(M) 61=9
EmaH V C a
<a"I ryn 2,' 20min
"'a 2 n » I/
LaTabon and
CM)3381887
Ema§ vCa
V§iam F"
"'? 2 n » I/
LATYKan and Kid
(650)
vCa
I e Key Fa ra n a, J i,,,
Acsockh",
Ond Usn HrA EnhArnow",
EmaH v C a
h"s&mw rutan.mm/i nd ustries/beer and-deve lope rs/ 2/6
12/2/21, 3:21 PM
19111 1
Builders and Land Developers - Rutan & Tucker, LLP
A in 1,1'/,,, r in, c
C7'4) G4"i-3452
i' I'I"
n J, G o c in
C7 " 4), 6 "," 2- 4 ",`9 9
i a i VC a r "'I"
J/ U' i 11 e K as L a in
II/,),'/'/5,/',O) 320,-"iSOG
n) aH V "; a I" """j
�'j r
'n rin r; I I 1-�
"j
('714) 6 40 3 4 15
i V I" "r/I
Lz,'� in m in
j
https://www.rutan.com/industries/buiIders-land-developers/
3/6
12/2/21, 3:21 PM Builders and and Developers - Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Ema§ V C a
JacqueHne L. War
AsocAc
d E » 1: ,Cama3 m ace
Fw/
CM) S4034m
EmaH v C a rici,
WHY"i FdMeehar:i
P a q n » i,
k»2E»m ZCcdcc
(T4) GIPM7
EmaH Wa rd
Gerard ""Ol.
"Oftoi-iey
P a A
LAjadon
n,-- i,
and
FW,'d
CM) 33SISS7
EmaH v C a rici,
Steven A. WOWS
P a A n,--
WpHon and FWd
M416403448
rr'i a § V C a
https://www.rutan.com/industries/buiIders-land-developers/ 56
12/2/21, 3:21 PM
Builders and Land Developers - Rutan & Tucker, LLP
(04) 66&4620
EmaH Ww"'r/I
Maw
CmyouAo and Acw1hu,
MQ 64P34W/"//5
I ThInd
Maw
GovonnwN and
RuguNwl
('714) 338-1819
EmaH Waid
Wbock&
GovonnwN and
RuguNwl
CM) G40340/5'
EmaH Wai,'d
Ash key Vern ic
(Vaccara)
LAI, don and Fh,"d
(T4) 6604685
EmaH V C a I" r"i"
https://www.rutan.com/industries/buiIders-land-developers/ 5/6
12/2/21, 3:21 PM
Builders and Land Developers - Rutan & Tucker, LLP
I"
https://www.rutan.com/industries/buiIders-land-developers/ 6/6
f BU I LDI NG I N DUSTRY OF SOUTH ERN CALI FORN IA, I NC.
ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER
i
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
December 7, 2021
PRESIDENT
Mayor Vicente Sarmlento
y
SKUMIIM
KIRK E NTI
RENTAL LIVING
City of Santa Ana
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
1�T VICE PRESIDENT
EPIC NELSON
TPUMAPK HOMES
Dear Mayor and Council,
TREASURER
On November 16, 2021, the City Council for the City of Santa Ana ("City") held a public hearing
BROOKE DOI
during which it addressed Zoning Amendment No. 2021-03 ("Repealing and Reenacting in its
SHEA HOMES
Entirety Article XVIILI. of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code Regarding the Housing
Opportunity Ordinance"). The Orange County Chapter of the Building Industry Association of
SECRETARY
Southern California (`BIA/OC") objects to the scope of the City Council's changes to the Housing
NICOLE MURRAY
Opportunity Ordinance ("HOO") after it was introduced. For the reasons set forth in this letter,
TAYLOP MORRISON
BIA/OC respectfully requests that the new, re -imagined HOO ordinance be sent back to the
Planning Commission for further review and public input.
TRADE CONTRACTOR VP
On the night of November 16, and into the early morning of the next day, the City Council proposed
ALAN BOUDREAU
BOUDREAU PIPELINE
a dizzying array of amendments to the HOO ordinance, fundamentally changing what had been
publicly vetted. As detailed below, the Council made a variety of substantive, non -clerical, and
non -typographical changes that the public, the Planning Commission, and City Staff never had a
ASSOCIATE MEMBER VP
chance to review, including:
MARK HIMMELSTEIN
NEWMEVER & DILLION, LLP
• Altering priorities for the use of the inclusionary housing fund not directly
relating to the production of affordable housing units;
MEMBER AT LARGE
PETER VANEK
• Altering inclusionary rates for for -sale units;
INTPEGAL COMMUNITIES
• Mandating skilled and trained workforce and local hire, phased in at two levels;
O November 16, 2021 to December 31, 2025: MEMBER AT LARGE
• $15: no requirements SEAN MATSLEP
■ $10: 30 percent skilled and trained workforce and two trades, Cox, CASTLE, a NICHOLSON LLP
and 20 percent local hire
• $5: 60 percent skilled and trained workforce and three trades, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
and 20 percent local hire PICK WOOD
O January 1, 2026 onward:
■ $15: 30 percent skilled and trained workforce and 35 percent
local hire VICE PRESIDENT OC CHAPTER
■ $10: 60 percent skilled and trained workforce and 35 percent ADAM WOOD
local hire BIASC
■ $5: 90 percent skilled and trained workforce and 35 percent local
hire
• Incorporating a 4/5 vote requirement for future amendments
17192 M U R P HY AVE #14445, I RV I N E, CA 92623
949-553-9500 1 BIAOC.COM
The amendments run afoul of the City Charter's explicit restrictions on changing the "general scope" of the
proposed HOO ordinance after its introduction. (City Charter Art. IV, Div. 2, Sec. 413 ["A proposed
ordinance may be amended or modified between the time of its introduction and the time of its final passage,
providing its general scope and original purpose are retained."].) Because the proposed amendments
changed the "general scope" of the ordinance by substantively altering its provisions, the proposed
ordinance must be re -introduced before adoption, allowing for another waiting period to pass before the
modified ordinance can be adopted.' This important step helps to ensure that laws, especially those as
consequential as the HOO, are drafted carefully and are provided with a full and open review by the public
before their ultimate approval.'
The City Council's vote on the HOO amendments provides context on why these guardrails should be in
place. When the City Council voted on the Mayor's substitute motion containing the variety of newly
proposed amendments —introduced mere minutes before the rushed vote at approximately 1:30 am —the
voting screen only stated "Substitute motion" without providing additional context about the exact changes
proposed. Because of the proposed ordinance's changed scope, it appeared that some City Councilmembers
were confused over what was proposed while they cast votes on those very amendments. The HOO
amendments were a moving target, even up until the final seconds before their early morning approval.
BIA/OC objects to the changes to the HOO introduced by the City Council and respectfully requests that
the motion approving the rushed array of new amendments changing the ordinance's general scope be sent
back to the Planning Commission for further review.
Sincerely,
Adam Wood
Vice President
Building Industry Association of
Southern California
Orange County Chapter
i Foley, Ordinances and Resolutions: Practice Tips for Effective Legislation, League of California Cities Annual
Conference<https://www.cacities.org/uploadedfiles/leagueintemet/53/530f101f-f778-47cf-8995-3fca3e8bal29.pdf>
(as of December 1, 2021), stating "Alterations (other than for typographical or clerical errors) prior to second
reading require re -introduction for all non -urgency ordinances" (emphasis added).
'How Local Agencies Make Things Happen, Institute for Local Government (June 2014) <https://www.ca-
ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/how_agencies_make_things _happen_june_2014.pdt> (as of December 1,
2021), stating "If substantive changes are made to a proposed ordinance after it is first introduced, it generally will
need to be re -introduced and another waiting period must pass before the modified ordinance can be
adopted. These steps ensure that laws are drafted as carefully as possible and to ensure that a full and open review
of the ordinance occurs that permits the public to review and comment on the proposed law prior to its approval"
(emphasis added).