From: Jackie Angel Investor
To: Durham. Daniel; eComment
Cc: Vazquez. Beniamin; Rvbera. Erinn
Subject: SANTA ANA PD FIRED HERE# QProofs
Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 1: 16: 24 PM
Attachments: 1000007652. ona
1000007654. ona
1000007516. ona
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Notice Served 9/ 19/ 25 6 pm
Bristol Street, Santa Ana California
Daniel Durham- I demand an immediate internal investigation into the arrests of 2 more of our Women
by thug pigs at SAPD the night of 9/ 18/ 25 outside 34 CIVIC CENTER y
AWAM
r
4 1 : 07 LI` Y
Thread
Santa Ana Saint City
Lwbaintuay(14
e broke up last night
@eityofsentean -Santa Ana California
domestieabusers # FUC I E
SantaAna # California
RACIST
R4CML
II
11: 31 AM 20 Sep 25 from Santa Ana; CA • 386 ,Jiews
n 11.+ Wa
Ih- d D
activity
aa•,• Y -
Y °..:+..
d 4 yes .. I r,.$.;.
7iri ti f;;.
r -
Capture more
t
r
V
wh
A
y
r
VAL
R
OC
Downtown Santa A ,
1 f l
ICE out
Francis Co.
r
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Timothy Rush <
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 4:47 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Please direct this to the mayor Valerie Amescua in regards to the passing of a former miss Santa Ana from 1938
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear Honorable Mayor: I thought you would be interested to know that Margaret Lang, who was a recipient of numerous certificates of recognition from yourself and other mayors and members of the council over the years as she advanced in age sadly passed away this week at the ripe age of 106 years of age.
She slipped the bonds of this earth peacefully with her family around her. This wonderful lady was a longtime friend and former client of mine. Both she and her husband, her husband George passed away about 30 years ago. Miss Lang was a graduate of Santa Ana high school I believe in 1937 and was Miss Santa Ana in 1938 and Rhode, on the Metropolitan water District Rose parade featuring representatives from all 13 founding cities of which Santa Ana was one. Margaret' s grandfather was a sheepherder. He was a Basque heritage and he raised sheep in the area around the family ranch house, which was at 804 North Baker St. and of course was built about 160 years ago and didn' t have a bathroom or modern plumbing. It is on our cities register of historic buildings and of course as one of the oldest homes in Washington Square.
Her daughter Julie Lang graduated with Tom Lutz from Santa Ana high school in 1962. Miss Lang lived with her daughter for the last many years in the family home in Dana point.
I' m assuming you would like to close the next council meeting in her memory. Please call me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Tim Rush,
Past president Washington Square neighborhood association Sent from my iPhone 1 From: Jackie Anael Investor
To: eComment
Cc: Vazauez. Beniamin; erinn. rvbera(& asm. ca. aov
Subject: Santa Ana councilmember requests probe into police union' s use of public funds Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11: 37: 14 AM
Attachments: 1000007872. ona
1000007652. ona
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
We have fired Santa Ana Police here and put a restraining order on them.
Santa Ana councilmember requests probe into police union' s use of public funds https:// Iaist. com/ news/santa-ana-counciImember-requests-probe-into- police- unionsuse-of-public-funds Santa Ana councilman asks CA DOJ to investigate city's police union Councilman Benjamin Vazquez, who serves as Santa Ana' s mayor pro tempore, called for a state investigation into the city's police officers association after an audit found that the city overpaid the union by roughly $ 3 million. https:// www.cbsnews.com/ losangeles/video/santa-ana-councilman- asks-ca- doj- toinvestigate-citys- police- union/ City of Santa Ana fye 6/ 2025
Parking Revenue - Structures and Meters
Parking Facilities Revenue and Expenditures
1, 350, 914. 61 Structures Revenue
1 , 879, 202. 48 Structures Expenditures
1, 871, 950. 28 Parking Meters Revenue
1, 702, 969. 15 Parking Meters Expenditure
Santa Ana demands independent police oversight and justice for Noe Rodriguez at city council meeting
https:// fightbacknews.org/articles/ santa-ana-demands-independent-police- oversightand-justice-for-noe- rodriguez-at @CityofSantaAna At the meeting, Mayor Valerie Amezcua and Councilmembers Thai Viet Phan, Phil Bacerra and David Penaloza voted in favor of SAPD continuing to use military equipment and move towards a drone program. @UClrvine UC Irvine California
Haiti: at least eight children among 13 killed in drone attack on birthday party https:// www.theauardian. com/ world/ 2025/sep/23/ haiti-drone-attack-eight-childrenkilled Eric Adams Abandons Re- election Bid for Mayor of New York City Mayor Adams' s campaign was left foundering after repeated scandals, a federal indictment and his courtship of President Trump.
https:// www. nytimes. com/ 2025/ 09/ 28/ nyregion/ adams- mayor- drops- out. html Parking...
A 4 M D 4 M F
City of Santa Ana
2 Parking Revenue - Structures and Meters
3 Parking Facilities Revenue and Expenditures
4 City of Santa Ana Fiscal Year 712023- 6/ 2024 7/ 2024- 812025 5 Broadway Structure GONE* GONE*
6 Spurgeon Structure 497. 551 . 71 558, 049. 41
7 Birch ,Structure 509, 422.22 $ 483,493. 70
a Main Structure 286, 776. 691 $ 309, 371 . 50
9 Total Revenue 1, 293, 750. 62 $ 1, 350, 914. 61
Total Expenditures 1 $ 1 , 6167600. 64 $ 1 , 879, 202. 48 12 Yearly Difference + 1. 322, 850. 02 -$ 528, 287. 87
13 14 City of Santa Ana Fiscal Year 712023- 6/ 2024 7/ 2024- 6/ 2025 15 Parking Meters Revenue 1, 647, 507. 61 $ 1, 871, 950. 28 16 Parking Meters Expenditure 1 , 844, 562. 71 $ 1 , 70 , 969. 15 17 1s Yearly Difference +f- 197, 055. 10 $ 168, 981 . 13 19 20 * Bmadway Parking Structure was sold during fiscal year 2022- 2023 r 7
a FAT,
C7w t7w,
aL ga@ L
r
L
J L
z
s
Z
N
a" _
a
04PAPO v
rt_
Becerra, Alexis
From: Anita Halpern < ahalpern@traffixdevices. com>
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 7: 34 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Urgent Concern — Mobile Home Park Owner Coercing Tenants to Sign Legal Documents Under Threat of Lawsuit
Attachments: Hearing Concerning property 5002 W McFadden Ave Santa Ana Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
From: Anita Halpern
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 7: 25 AM
To: ' vamezcua@sant- ana. org' < vamezcua@sant- ana. org>; ' tphan@santa- ana. org' < tphan@santa- ana. org>; bvaquez@santa- ana. org' < bvaquez@santa- ana. org>; ' jessielopez@santa- ana. org' < jessielopez@santa- ana. org>; pbacerra@santa- ana. org' < pbacerra@santa- ana. org>; ' jryanhernandez@santa- ana. org' < jryanhernandez@santaana. org>; ' dpenaloza@santa- ana. org' < dpenaloza@santa- ana. org>; ' scarvalho@santa- ana. org' < scarvalho@santaana. org>; ' [email protected]' < rueda@publiclawcenter. org>; ' rso@santa- ana. org' < rso@santa- ana. org> Subject: Urgent Concern— Mobile Home Park Owner Coercing Tenants to Sign Legal Documents Under Threat of Lawsuit Anita Halpern
10/ 03/ 2025
Rent Control Board
Rent Stabilization Division
City of Santa Ana
Subject: Urgent Concern— Mobile Home Park Owner Coercing Tenants to Sign Legal Documents Under Threat of Lawsuit
Dear Members of the Rent Control Board,
I am writing to formally bring to your attention a deeply concerning situation that is currently unfolding at Bit0- Home Mobile Home Park, located at 5002 West McFadden Ave, Santa Ana California. In September there was a hearing regarding an effort of the property management to increase Rent. ( See attached letter I sent at that time).
In recent days, the park owner and/ or management has been pressuring tenants, including myself, to sign legal documents under the threat of being sued. The nature and purpose of these documents have not been 1 clearly explained, and the demand to sign appears both sudden and coercive. Tenants have been approached individually and/ or letters left on porches, and there is a growing sense of fear and confusion throughout our community.
Many of us feel intimidated by these tactics and are afraid that if we do not comply and sign the documents, management may retaliate through harassment or other forms of pressure. Some tenants have expressed fear of eviction or other punitive actions. The lack of transparency and the aggressive tone in communication from management have left residents anxious and uncertain about their rights and future.
We are reaching out to the Rent Control Board because we believe these actions may constitute tenant harassment and could be in violation of rent control or mobile home residency laws. We are requesting your immediate attention to investigate this matter and provide guidance on how residents should proceed without jeopardizing their housing security.
We respectfully ask that the Rent Control Board intervene to:
1. Clarify whether the park owner' s actions are legal and permissible under applicable rent control and mobile home laws.
2. Inform residents of their rights in this situation.
3. Offer protection or legal resources for tenants who are feeling coerced or intimidated.
Thank you for your time and attention to this urgent matter. Please feel free to contact me at 714- 675- 5320 or ahalpern123@gmail. com should you require further information or would like to speak with concerned tenants directly.
Sincerely,
Anita Halpern
Resident, Bit- O- Home Mobile Home Park
Space# 65
Anita Halpern
Buyer I TrafFix Devices
P ( 949) 361- 5663
E ahalpern@traffixdevices. com
Scorpion R 864ClcER,=
PROTECT YOUR FIRST RESPONDERS
5 YOUR
SC
EQUIPMENT
THE
Facebook I Instagram Linkedln Mastodon Bluesky YouTube TDU 2 Becerra, Alexis
From: Anita Halpern < ahalpern@traffixdevices. com>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 1: 07 PM
To: RSO
Cc: vamezcua@sant- ana. org'; Phan, Thai; ' bvaquez@santa- ana. org'; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David; Carvalho, Sonia R.; rueda@publiclawcenter. org'
Subject: Hearing Concerning property 5002 W McFadden Ave Santa Ana Attachments: 4447_001. pdf
9/ 26/ 2024
Anita Halpern
Rent Stabilization Division
City of Santa Ana
Dear Rent Stabilization Division,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed rent increase at Bit- O- Home Mobile Home Park and to formally submit a fair return petition on behalf of the residents. I received your letter today and it is past the reply date listed, but I hope you will consider my message in your review.
This is not a glamorous mobile home park; it is a community where families and individuals live because it is what they can afford, not because they choose to.
The conditions at Bit-O- Home are far from ideal. Residents face significant challenges, including the presence of gangs and their tagging, drug sales, and even recent violent incidents, such as murders. These factors create an environment that is both unsafe and unstable, making the proposed rent increase not only unjust but also potentially detrimental to the community.
Additionally, it' s important to highlight that the maintenance and upkeep of the mobile homes are the sole responsibility of the homeowners. This includes not only the interior and exterior maintenance but also yard upkeep. As such, the park incurs minimal costs for maintenance, which raises questions about the necessity of increasing rent for residents who are already shouldering these financial burdens.
Raising the rent would entrap residents in an untenable situation. Many individuals and families would find themselves unable to afford the increased costs, leading to the impossible choice of either selling their mobile homes at a loss or being evicted and losing all. Furthermore, with rising costs, few will be able to sell their mobile homes at a price that reflects their initial investment, effectively locking them into a cycle of financial instability. 1 The residents of Bit- O- Home deserve a fair chance to live without the burden of exorbitant rent increases, especially given the challenging environment they already face. We urge the Stabilization Division to consider these factors seriously and to reject the proposed rent increases, ensuring that this community can remain a viable option for those who have few alternatives.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. We hope for a fair and just resolution that considers the well- being of all residents.
Note: Hearing is scheduled for Oct 3, 2024
Sincerely,
Anita Halpern
Anita Halpern
Buyer I TrafFix Devices
P ( 949) 361- 5663
E ahalpern@traffixdevices. com
Facebook I Instagram Linkedln Twitter I YouTube TDU
2 MAYOR CITY MANAGER
Valerie Amezcua
Alvaro Nunez
MAYOR PRO TEM CITY ATTORNEY
Thai Viet Phan
Sonia R. C
CLERK
o
COUNCILMEMBERS CITY CLERK
Phil Bacerra
Jennifer L. Hall
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Jessie Lopez
David Penaloza
Benjamin Vazquez CITY OF SANTA ANA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza— M25
Santa Ana, California 92702
www. santa- ana. araj
Date: 9/ 17/ 2024
Dear Resident,
The City of Santa Ana' s Rent Stabilization Division (" RSD") has accepted a Fair Return Petition concerning the property at: 5002 W McFadden Ave, Santa Ana Ca, 92704. The Hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, October 3, 2024. We are contacting you to confirm your attendance and inquire about your need for translation services. Please reach out to us before 9/ 18/ 2024 at 12: 00 pm via email at rso . santa-ana. orq or at 714-667-2209 to make the necessary arrangements.
Estimado Residente,
La Agencia de Estabilizacion de Alquileres de la Ciudad de Santa Ana (`rRSD") ha aceptado Una Peticibn de Retorno Justo con respecto a la propiedad en 5002 W McFadden Ave, Santa Ana, CA 92704. La audiencia esta programada para el jueves 3 de octubre de 2024 y nos estamos comunicando con usted para confirmar su asistencia y preguntar sobre la necesidad de servicios de traduccion. Por favor, contactenos antes del 18/ 09/ 2024 a las 12: 00 pm por correo electronico a rso - santa- ana. oM o al 714- 667- 2209 para hacer los arreglos necesarios.
Kinh thu°a Cu, dan,
Ban On Binh Tien thue nha (" RSD") cua Thanh ph40 Santa Ana da chap nhan flan An Hoan tra Cong bang lien quan den tai san tai: 5002 W McFadden Ave, Santa Ana Ca, 92704. Phien lieu tran da dtrac len lich vao Thtx Nam, ngay 3 thang 10 nano 2024. Chung toi Bang lien ha vai ban de xac nhan sLP tham ducua ban va hoi ve nhu cau cua ban dbi vai dich vu dich thuat. Vui long lien he vai chung toi trlxac 12: 00 tru°a ngay 18/ 9/ 2024 qua email theo dia chi rso@santaana. org hoac theo so 714- 667- 2209 de thtxc hien nhu, ng sap xep can thiet.
Best Regard,
Rent Stabilization Division
Community Development Agency
SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL
Valerie Amezcua Thai Viet Phan Benjamin Vazquez Jessie Lopez Phil Bacerra Johnathan Ryan Hernandez David Penaloza Mayor Mayor Pro Tern, Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward 6 yaa" 00 UaatL&na pro ( sya? CUR7.1$ r4anEa- ana. am raana. om blcerrR 92rt' rea.. y9 rtYsnhemaneleY nia=ana. ar tlG& naloza 5dl11a 8rga. 9rC Becerra, Alexis
From: Jackie Angel Investor <
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 10: 22 AM
To: eComment; Durham, Daniel
Cc: Vazquez, Benjamin; Ryberg, Erinn
Subject: CITY OF SANTA ANA PARKS AND RECREATION Lawsuit Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA;
Attachments: Paloma Ortiz vs City of Santa Ana Parks and Recreation. pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
City of Santa Ana is FIRED HERE.
Plaintiff, V. COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF SANTA ANA PARKS AND RECREATION, a California Government Entity;
Complaint for Damages: 1. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102. 5; 2. Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA; and 3. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL PLAINTIFF
Reports Wage Theft to her Supervisor
witnessed the wage theft and immediately reported it to her supervisor, Rodolfo (" Rudy") Hernandez at the beginning of September, one month after Ms. Ortiz began to oversee Roosevelt Walker Community Center.
Mr. Hernandez expressed frustration from Ms. Ortiz' s complaints, but failed to take any action to discipline the employees. Ms. Ortiz continued to complain about employee timesheets every pay period, as she felt uncomfortable signing off on timesheets she knew to be fabricated. Despite having this knowledge, Mr.
Hernandez did nothing to assist Ms. Ortiz in figuring out a solution to ensure employees adequately filled out the timesheets and failed to take her complaints seriously. Rather, Mr. Hernandez would simply sign off on the employee time sheets himself, despite knowing the time sheets were fabricated.
Ms. Ortiz is Forced to Endure Sexual Harassment Throughout her Employment 11. Throughout her employment with the City, Ms. Ortiz was also forced to endure numerous instances of sexual harassment by her supervisor, Mr. Hernandez. On numerous occasions, Mr. Hernandez would rub Ms. Ortiz' s shoulders and be overly affectionate with her in front of other female employees, which made her uncomfortable. On other occasions, Mr. Hernandez would comment on Mr. Ortiz' s appearance, specifically her butt, and repeatedly talk about " how pretty" she was. The harassment continued for roughly three months, and although Ms. Ortiz did not directly report the harassment to Human Resources, Ms. Ortiz expressed her discomfort directly to Mr.
Hernandez by putting him on notice that such conduct would be reported to the proper authorities. Mr.
Hernandez subsequently began retaliating against Ms. Ortiz by completely ignoring her, negating all his supervisory duties. d. Ms. Ortiz' s Supervisors Fail to Take Her Complaints Seriously Ms. Ortiz' s Employment is Terminated Following Protected Complaints 15. When Ms. Ortiz returned to work on January 3, 2023, she diligently continued her work in preventing wage theft by implementing a new policy regarding employee attendance and reported working hours. The new policy instructed employees to call the Community Center to report when employees were unable to work or would be late to their respective shifts.
On January 5, 2023, after one of the employees she oversaw falsified their timeshect, Ms. Ortiz again complained to Mr. Hernandez, stating that the conduct was not conducive to the City' s new policy and the employee needed to be held accountable. Mr. Hernandez continued to disregard Ms. Ortiz' s complaints.
City never critiqued Ms. Ortiz' s performance during the meeting, nor did the City provide a legitimate reason for her termination. Furthermore, upon information and belief, the City did not take the required steps to 1 transition Ms. Ortiz' s position to that of a permanent employee after the expiration of her sixmonth probationary period, intentionally depriving her of the benefit of certain employment protections. Thus, it was clear to Ms. Ortiz that her employment was being terminated, not for any legitimate reason, but, rather, in retaliation for her protected complaints.
z
tieuironlcany riled fly oupenor k uurt of t,anlornia, t- ounty of orange, uyrvrizul-o v4: 14: oo rlvl. 30- 2023- 01348523- CU- WT- C.JC - ROA# 4- DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By A. Van Arkel, Deputy Clerk.
SUM- 100
SUMMONS FOR COURT USE ONLY
CITACiON JUDICIAL)
SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
A VYSO AL DEMANDADO):
CITY OF SANTA ANA PARKS AND RECREATION;
See attached Additional Parties Attachment form)
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE).
PALOMA ORT12% an individual;
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center( www.courtinfo. ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site( www. lawhetpcalifornia. org), the California Courts Online Self- Help Center www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of$ 10,000 or more in a civil case. The courts lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
IAVlSOf Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la torte puede decidir an su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informaci6n a COntinuaci6n.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despu6s de que le entreguen esta cltaci6n y papeles legales pare presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta carte y hater que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una Carta a una llamada telef6nica no to protegen. Su respuesta par escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su Casa an la carte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
Puede encontrar estos formularlas de la corte y m6s informacOn an el Centro de Ayuda de las Cores de California( www.sucorte. ca. gov), an la biblioteca de! eyes de su condado o an la torte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentaci6n, pida at secretario de la carte que to d6 un formulario de exenci6n de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso par incumplimiento y la torte le podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin m6s advertencia.
Nay otros requisites legales. Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remisi6n a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisites para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, www.lawhelpcalifornia. org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cores de California, ( www. sucorte. ca.gov) o poni6ndose an contacto con la Corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Per ley, la torte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos par imponer un gravamen sabre cualquier recuperaci6n de$ 10,000 6 m6s de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesi6n de arbitraje an un caso de derecho civil. Pone que pagar at gravamen de la code antes de que la torte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER: 0- 2 0 2 3- 01_i 48 s 2 3- C U- 1'rT- C I C El hombre y
direccOn de la torte es): Orange County Superior Court N6mero der caso):
Central Justice Center Assigned for All Purposes
700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California 92701 judge Deborah S e n i n c, The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
El nombre, la direcci6n y el n6mero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
Marissa L. Simmons, Esq., 3807 W. Sierra Highway, Suite 206, Acton CA 93510; Tel: ( 661) 434- 1144 DATE: 0910712023 David Yarnasaki Clerk of the Court Clerk, by 711kol Deputy Fecha) secretario) Adjunto)
For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons ( farm POS- 010).) A. Van Ark ell Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, ( POS- 010)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
REAL]
1. 0 as an individual defendant.
2. 0 as the person sued under the fictitious name of( specify):
3, on behalf of( specify): C I1-y eiF SAWA ANA ? IVVS Aet" D Qlb& Bp I f ". 1- t0 under: 0 CCP 416. 10 ( corporation) 0 CCP 416. 60( minor) 0vr0 tt lit
0 CCP 416. 20 ( defunct corporation) 0 CCP 416. 70 ( conservatee) 0 CCP 416. 40( association or partnership) = CCP 416. 90 ( authorized person) other( specify): q 1 (, l50 4 1- iC WITYIt
4. by personal delivery on ( date):
Pa staff
Farm Adapted for Mandatory Use SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure§§ 412, 20, 465 Judicial Council of California SUM- 100 [ Rev. July 1, 20091
www. courtinfo, co. gov
SUM- 200( A)
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
Paloma Ortiz v. City of Santa Ana Parks and Recreation
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons, If this attachment is used, insert the following statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: " Additional Parties Attachment form is attached."
List additional parties ( Check only one box. Use a separate page for each type of party.):
Plaintiff Fv Defendant L] Cross- Complainant Cross- Defendant a California Government Entity; DOES 1- 10, business entities, forms unknown; DOES 11- 20, individuals; and DOES 21- 30, inclusive;
Forma for Mandatory use
Judicial Judicialicial Council of California ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT SUM- 200) A)[ Rev. January 1, 2007] Attachment to Summons r-lectromoatty rueu Liy OupenoT UIDUR 01 uawarrua, t,ounty or orange, uerur/ ZUZo u4-.I14:. SO rlvl. 010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY( Name, Slate Barnumber, and address); FOR COURT USEONLY
PAYTON EMPLOYMENT LAW, PC
Marissa L. Simmons, Esq.( SBN: 293215); Rayne A.Brown, Esq.( 342011) 3807 W. Sierra Highway, Suite 206
Acton, California 93510
T]
y q 1
TELEPHONE NO.:
7(
6}6 1) 434- 1 144 FAX No,; ( 661) 434- 1144
ATTORNEY FOR( Name): Plaintiff r a.loma Ortiz
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFT Orange
STREET ADDRESS: 700 Civic Center Drive` v Y7est
MAILING ADDRESS: 700 Civic Center Drive West
CITY AND ZIP CODF: Santa Ana, CA, 92701
BRANCH NAME: Central Justice Center
CASE NAME:
Paloma Ortiz v. City of Santa Ana Parks and Recreation
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER: 30- 2023- 01348523- CIJ- W-CJC 0 Unlimited = Limited
Amount Amount Counter Joinder Assifn-Pd for All Purpoies demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant JUDGE, judge Deborah S e ry i n o
exceeds$ 25, 000) $ 25, 000 or less) Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:
Items 1- 6 below must be completed( see instructions on page 2).
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto( 22) Breach of contract/ warranty( 06) ( Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3. 400- 3. 403) Uninsured motorist( 46) Rule 3. 740 collections( 09) Antitrust/ Trade regulation( 03) Other PIIPDMD( Personal Injury/ Property = Other collections( 09) Construction defect( 10) DamageMrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage( 18) Mass tort( 40) Asbestos( 04) Other contract 37( ) Securities litigation( 28) Product liability( 24) Real Property Environmental/ Toxic tort( 30) Medical malpractice( 45) Eminent domain/ inverse Insurance coverage claims arising from the Other PI/ PD/ WD( 23) condemnation( 14) above listed provisionally complex case Non
11-
PIIPDIWD( Other) Tort Wrongful eviction( 33) types( 41) I— JI Business tortlunfair business practice( 07) = Other real property( 26) Enforcement of Judgment III Civil rights( 08) Unlawful Detainer Enforcement of judgment( 20) LJ Defamation( 13) Commercial( 31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud( 16) Residential( 32) RICO( 27)
Intellectual property( 19) Drugs( 38) Other complaint( not specified above)( 42) Professional negligence( 25) Judicial Review
Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Other non- PI/ PDIWD tort( 35) Asset forfeiture( 05)
Partnership and corporate governance( 21)
Employment Petition re: arbitration award( 11) =
Other petition( not specified above)( 43)
Wrongful termination( 36) Writ of mandate( 02)
Other employment( 15) Other judicial review( 39)
2. This case is L-&—/ J is not complex under rule 3. 400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. = Large number of separately represented parties d. = Large number of witnesses b. = Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. = Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time- consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. = Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. = Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
3. Remedies sought( check all that apply): a.0 monetary b. 0 nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c.= punitive
4. Number of causes of action ( specify): Three ( 3)
5. This case = is 0 is not a class action suit.
6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. ( You may use form CM- 015.) Date: September 7, 2023
Marissa L. Simmons, Esq.
TYPE OR PRINT NAME) SIGN TURE Alll ATTORNEY FOR PARTY)
NOTICE
a Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding ( except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3. 220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions.
File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
If this case is complex under rule 3, 400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding.
Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlf. a eiof2
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2, 30, 3.220, 3. 400- 3.403, 3740, Judicial Council of California Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3. 10 CM- 010[ Rev. July 1, 2007] www. courlinfo. ca. gov
CM- 010
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET
To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper ( for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action.
To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2. 30 and 3. 220 of the California Rules of Court.
To Parties in Rule 3. 740 Collections Cases. A " collections case" under rule 3. 740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $ 25, 000, exclusive of interest and attorney' s fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: ( 1) tort damages, ( 2) punitive damages, ( 3) recovery of real property, ( 4) recovery of personal property, or ( 5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3, 740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time- for- service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3. 740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3. 740.
To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3. 400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter- designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex.
CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation( Cal.
Auto( 22)- Personal Injury/ Property Breach of ContractlWarranty( 06) Rules of Court Rules 3. 400- 3.403) DamagelWrongful Death Breach of Rental/ Lease Antitrust/ Trade Regulation( 03) Uninsured Motorist( 46)( if the Contract( not unlawful detainer Construction Defect( 10) case involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) Claims Involving Mass Tort( 40) motorist claim subject to Contract/ Warranty Breach- Seller Securities Litigation( 28) arbitration, check this item Plaintiff( not fraud or negligence) Environmental/ Toxic Tort( 30) instead of Auto) Negligent Breach of Contractl Insurance Coverage Claims Other PIlPD1WD( Personal Injury/ Warranty arising from provisionally complex Property Damage/ Wrongful Death) Other Breach of Contract/ Warranty case type listed above)( 41) Tort Collections( e. g., money owed, open Enforcement of Judgment Asbestos( 04) book accounts)( 09) Enforcement of Judgment( 20) Asbestos Property Damage Collection Case- Seller Plaintiff Abstract of Judgment( Out of Asbestos Personal Injury! Other Promissory Note/ Collections County) Wrongful Death Case Confession of Judgment( nonProduct Liability( not asbestos or Insurance Coverage( not provisionally domestic relations) toxiclenvironmental)( 24) complex)( 18) Sister State Judgment Medical Malpractice( 45) Auto Subrogation Administrative Agency Award Medical Malpractice- Other Coverage not unpaid taxes)
Physicians& Surgeons Other Contract( 37) Petition/ Certification of Entry of Other Professional Health Care Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Malpractice Other Contract Dispute Other Enforcement of Judgment Other PIIPDMD( 23) Real Property
Case
Premises Liability( e, g., slip Eminent Domain/ inverse Miscellaneous Civil Complaint and fall) Condemnation( 14) RiCO( 27)
Intentional Bodily InjuryiPD1WD Wrongful Eviction( 33) Other Complaint( not specified e.g., assault, vandalism) Other Real Property( e. g., quiet title)( 26) above)( 42)
Declaratory Relief Only Intentional Infliction of Writ of Possession of Real Property Injunctive Relief Only( non- Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure harassment) Negligent Infliction of Quiet Title
Mechanics Lien
Emotional Distress Other Real Property( not eminent
Other Commercial Complaint
Other PIIPDIWD domain, landlord/ tenant, or
Non- PIIPDIWD( Other) Tort foreclosure)
Case( non n complex}
Business Tort/ Unfair Business Unlawful Detalner
Other Civil Complaint
Practice( 07) Commercial( 31)
non- torbno
Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Civil Rights( e.g., discrimination, Residential( 32) Partnership and Corporate false arrest)( not civil Drugs( 38)( if the case involves illegal Governance( 21) harassment)( 08) drugs, check this item; otherwise, Other Petition( not specified Defamation( e. g., slander, libel) report as Commercial or Residential) above)( 43) 13) Judicial Review Civil Harassment
Fraud( 16) Asset Forfeiture( 05) Workplace Violence
Intellectual Property( 19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award( 11) Elder/Dependent Adult Professional Negligence( 25) Writ of Mandate( 02) Abuse Legal Malpractice Writ- Administrative Mandamus Election Contest Other Professional Malpractice Writ- Mandamus on Limited Court Petition for Name Change not medical or legal) Case Matter Petition for Relief From Late Other Nan- PIIPDfWD Tort( 35) Writ- Other Limited Court Case Claim Employment Review Other Civil Petition
Wrongful Termination( 36) Other Judicial Review( 39)
Other Employment( 15) Review of Health Officer Order
Notice of Appeal- Labor
Commissioner Appeals
cM- oiolaeV. Aiyf, zoo-Il CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
tZiearUnicany rhea Uy oupenur k uurt Ui UanrUrnfla, LUurny ui urancge, uwurr4uz- 3 u4: 04:, o rive. 30- 2023 01348523- CU-WT- CJC - ROA# 2- DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By A. Van Arkel, Deputy Clerk. 1 PAYTON EMPLOYMENT LAW, PC
MARISSA L. SIMMONS, ESQ. ( SBN: 310234)
2 RAYNE A. BROWN, ESQ. ( SBN: 342011)
JOHNNY D. GRIGGS, ESQ.( SBN: 110640) 3
3807 W. Sierra Highway, Suite 206
4 Acton, California 93510
Telephone: ( 661) 434- 1144
5 Facsimile: ( 661) 434- 1144
MSimmons Pa tonEm to mentLaw. com
6 RBrown crPaytonEmp_loymentLaw. com
JGrigg s. PaytonEinployiuentLaw. corn
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff PALOMA ORTIZ
8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF ORANGE
U
a
11 0- 2023- 0134852_- CU- 1I, 7- CJC Case No.:
Assigned for Al! Purp. Dies judge Deborah Seroino
o
12 Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages:
F., H ly PALOMA ORTIZ, an individual,
W
i? 13
1. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §
Plaintiff,
1102. 5• 14
Q o V.
2. Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation
w x
15 of FEHA; and
CITY OF SANTA ANA PARKS AND 3. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public W 16 RECREATION, a California Government Policy. 00 r4Entity; DOES 1- 10, business entities, forms
17 unknown; DOES 11- 20, individuals; and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C DOES 21- 30, inclusive;
18 19 Defendants.
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 PLAINTIFF PALOMA ORTIZ' S COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff Paloma Ortiz (" Ms. Ortiz" or " Plaintiff') hereby files this Complaint against City of 2 Santa Ana Parks and Recreation, a California Government Entity (" Defendant"). Plaintiff is informed 3 and believes, and based thereon alleges, as follows:
4 I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
5 1. Plaintiff files this action to recover damages and obtain other remedies afforded to her by law 6 for violations of the California Labor Code arising from Defendant' s unlawful practices. Plaintiff 7 brings this action against Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102. 5, Quid Pro Quo Sexual 8 Harassment in Violation of FEHA and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and 9 statutory damages and penalties, prejudgment interest, special and general damages, costs, attorneys' 10 fees, and other appropriate relief for Defendant' s unlawful conduct. v
p`
11 II. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
a <0
12 2. Plaintiff Paloma Ortiz is an individual who, at all times relevant to this action, resided in the 4 U
Z 13 County of Los Angeles, State of California.
W P
s14 3. At all times herein mentioned, City of Santa Ana Parks and Recreation was and is a nonprofit aw x
15 corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, was and is registered for and is doing W 16 business in California, including the County of Orange, City of Santa Ana, with headquarters at 1651 z0 LU
17 E 4th St. Ste 250, Santa Ana, CA 92701- 5169.
18 4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate 19 or otherwise, of the Defendant sued herein under fictitious names Does 1 through 30, inclusive, and 20 for that reason sues said Defendant, and each of them, by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed, 21 believes, and thereupon alleges that each of the Defendant Does 1 through 30, inclusive, is and was in 22 some manner responsible for, participated in, or contributed to the matters and things of which Plaintiff 23 complains herein, and in some fashion, has legal responsibility, therefore. When Plaintiff ascertains the 24 names and capacities of the fictitiously named Defendant Does 1 through 30, inclusive, Plaintiff will 25 seek leave to amend this Complaint to set forth such facts. 26 5. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereupon alleges that each Defendant is, and at all times 27 relevant herein was, the agent of its co- defendants, and in committing the acts alleged herein, was 28 acting within the scope of its authority as such agent, and with the knowledge, permission, and consent
PLAINTIFF PALOMA ORTIVS COMPLAINT
1 I of its co- defendants.
2 6. Jurisdiction is proper inter alia under Labor Code § 1102. 5, and the FEHA. The amount in 3 controversy exceeds $ 25, 000.
4 7. Venue is proper in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, as this Court has 5 personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 395. Plaintiff worked in 6 and violations occurred in Orange County, and the contract of employment was formed in Orange 7 County.
8 III. ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION
9 8. Plaintiff timely submitted a Government Tort Clairn Act Notice to the City of Santa Ana on U
10 June 5, 2023 pursuant to Government Code §§ 910 and 8547. 10. More than 45 days have elapsed since 11 the submission of this claim without remedial action from the City of Santa Ana. Plaintiff also timely 44 a ; 12 submitted a complaint to the California Civil Rights Department on September 7, 2023, and has E. 4 E
WQ 13 received a Right to Sue Letter. Plaintiff has thus exhausted her administrative remedies and is now W
s
14 authorized to bring this civil action.
d ¢
w
15 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Qx
W 16 a. Background
O
3 17 9. Ms. Ortiz began her employment with City of Santa Ana Parks and Recreation( hereinafter, the 18 " City") on July 20, 2021 as a part- time Coordinator. In June of 2022, Ms. Ortiz was promoted to the 19 full-time position of Recreational Leader and became responsible for overseeing approximately ten 20 employees. As a new fiill-time employee, Ms. Ortiz was subject to a standard six-month probationary 21 period that expired in December 2022 and transitioned her position to that of a permanent, fiill-time 22 employee with certain employment protections. Throughout her time at the City of Santa Ana Parks 23 and Recreation, Ms. Ortiz was a diligent employee who took her supervisory duties seriously. 24 b. Ms. Ortiz Reports Wage Theft to her Supervisor
25 10. Part of Ms. Ortiz' s responsibilities included signing off on employees' time sheets for accuracy. 26 Employees were paid in advance, but were required to keep track of their hours and days worked. 27 Because of this system, employees would often falsify hours by recording hours they did not work, 28 including on days they did not show up to work. Every time an employee falsified hour, Ms. Ortiz was
PLAINTIFF PALOMA ORTIVS COMPLAINT
2 I
required to make time adjustments to Human Resources, which was very time consuming. Ms. Ortiz 2 witnessed the wage theft and immediately reported it to her supervisor, Rodolfo (" Rudy") Hernandez 3 at the beginning of September, one month after Ms. Ortiz began to oversee Roosevelt Walker 4 Community Center. Mr. Hernandez expressed frustration from Ms. Ortiz' s complaints, but failed to 5 take any action to discipline the employees. Ms. Ortiz continued to complain about employee 6 timesheets every pay period, as she felt uncomfortable signing off on tiinesheets she knew to be 7 fabricated. Despite having this knowledge, Mr. Hernandez did nothing to assist Ms. Ortiz in figuring 8 out a solution to ensure employees adequately filled out the timeshects and failed to take her complaints 9 seriously. Rather, Mr. Hernandez would simply sign off on the employee time sheets himself, despite 10 knowing the time sheets were fabricated.
U
z
11 C. Ms. Ortiz is Forced to Endure Sexual Harassment Throughout her Employment u
a0 12 11. Throughout her employment with the City, Ms. Ortiz was also forced to endure numerous F 4 W0 13 instances of sexual harassment by her supervisor, Mr. Hernandez. On numerous occasions, Mr.
W
14 Hernandez would rub Ms. Ortiz' s shoulders and be overly affectionate with her in front of other female a 15 employees, which made her uncomfortable. On other occasions, Mr. Hernandez would comment on zx 16 Mr. Ortiz' s appearance, specifically her butt, and repeatedly talk about " how pretty" she was. The 0 ¢ 17 harassment continued for roughly three months, and although Ms. Ortiz did not directly report the 4 a18 harassment to Human Resources, Ms. Ortiz expressed her discomfort directly to Mr. Hernandez by 19 putting him on notice that such conduct would be reported to the proper authorities. Mr. Hernandez 20 subsequently began retaliating against Ms. Ortiz by completely ignoring her, negating all his 21 supervisory duties.
22 d. Ms. Ortiz' s Supervisors Fail to Take Her Complaints Seriously 23 12. In December 2022, with the permission of Mr. Hernandez, Ms. Ortiz asked City Garden 24 employees to remove numerous gardens and shed items belonging to Garden Program Coordinator Ms. 25 De Vol Roach out of their shared working space as they were deemed unsafe and dangerous to contain 26 in an office space. Upon Ms. De Vol Roach' s return to the office, she yelled at Ms. Ortiz for moving 27 their belongings, making Ms. Ortiz uncomfortable. Following this incident, Ms. Ortiz emailed Ms. 28 Devol Roach and Mr. Hernandez explaining that what transpired was unacceptable and there needs to
PLAINTIFF PALOMA ORTIZ' S COMPLAINT
3 1 be a consensus in disciplining employees properly moving forward. 2 13. Thus, during this meeting on December 19, 2022, Ms. Roach, Mr. Hernandez, Ms. Ortiz 3 brought up the unprofessional atmosphere, including the employees' false reporting of wages. Rather 4 than acknowledging Ms. Ortiz' s concerns, Mr. Hernandez insinuated that if he brought her concerns 5 up to Parks and Recreation Manager, Tim Pegano, Ms. Oritz' s employment would be terminated. Mr. 6 Hernandez stated that "[ he] knows what [ Mr. Pegano] is going to tell him, and [ he] does not want to 7 do that to [ Ms. Ortiz]."
8 14. On December 20, 2022, Ms. Ortiz' s supervisors, Mr. Pegano and Mr. Hernandez, asked for a 9 " cheekin- in" meeting stating that they were " concerned for [ Ms. Ortiz' s] wellbeing. Ms. Ortiz 10 reiterated her concerns and asked for a transfer to another community center. Rather than taking Ms.
V
11 Ortiz' s complaints seriously, her supervisors scolded her, simply stating that, "[ Ms. Ortiz doesn' t] have o¢
a <0 12 the rank to call the shots" and " by moving locations, [ Ms. Oritz' s] reputation would be that she does ZEQ 13 not work well with others." Ms. Ortiz felt she had no support working for the City following the W
14 behavior ofMr. Hernandez and lack of concern from both of her supervisors. 1t was clear to Ms. Ortiz ao¢
15 that the City did not intend to take any of her complaints seriously and resented her for bringing such w W a
16 matters to their attention.
4024
O
3 17 e. Ms. Ortiz' s Employment is Terminated Following Protected Complaints aU 18 15. When Ms. Ortiz returned to work on January 3, 2023, she diligently continued her work in 19 preventing wage theft by implementing a new policy regarding employee attendance and reported 20 working hours. The new policy instructed employees to call the Community Center to report when 21 employees were unable to work or would be late to their respective shifts. On January 5, 2023, after 22 one of the employees she oversaw falsified their timeshect, Ms. Ortiz again complained to Mr. 23 Hernandez, stating that the conduct was not conducive to the City' s new policy and the employee 24 needed to be held accountable. Mr. Hernandez continued to disregard Ms. Ortiz' s complaints. 25 16. On January 18, 2023, Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Pogano met with Ms. Ortiz and informed her that 26 her employment was terminated. Given that Mr. Hernandez had been visibly frustrated by Ms. Ortiz' s 27 complaints throughout her employment, it is not surprising that her termination came only two weeks 28 after her most recent refusal to sign off on employees' time sheets that she knew to be fabricated. The
PLAINTIFF PALOMA ORTIZ' S COMPLAINT
4 t City never critiqued Ms. Ortiz' s performance during the meeting, nor did the City provide a legitimate 2 reason for her termination. Furthennore, upon information and belief, the City did not take the required 3 steps to transition Ms. Ortiz' s position to that of a permanent employee after the expiration of her six4 month probationary period, intentionally depriving her of the benefit of certain employment 5 protections. Thus, it was clear to Ms. Ortiz that her employment was being tenninated, not for any 6 legitimate reason, but, rather, in retaliation for her protected complaints. 7 V. CAUSES OF ACTION
8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
9 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
10 LABOR CODE & 1102. 5 (_B)
U
0.i
11 Against All Defendants)
30 av o
12 17. Plaintiff re- alleges and incorporates by reference each, and every allegation contained in the FU
13 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. s14 18. At all times herein relevant, Labor Code § 1102. 5 was in full force and effect. 0 w15 19. California Labor Code section 1102. 5( b) provides that " An employer, or any person acting on Wx g
16 behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information... to a person zOW a 17 with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, 18 or correct the violation or noncompliance... if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the 19 information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a 20 local, state, or federal rule or regulation..."
21 20. Plaintiff disclosed to her employer' s information that she had reasonable cause to believe 22 constituted a violation of state or federal law. Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that the 23 information she disclosed constituted violations of state and federal statutes, and the information 24 Plaintiff reported did in fact disclose violations of state and federal statutes, including the California 25 Labor Code.
26 21. Defendants failed to address, remedy, or give Plaintiff the authority to remedy any of these 27 reported violations.
28 22. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for making the disclosures described herein by engaging
PLAINTIFF PALOMA ORTIVS COMPLAIN
5 1
in the harassing and retaliatory actions described herein, which ultimately resulted in Plaintiff being 2 subjected to the actions detailed herein.
3 23. There was a causal connection between Plaintiff s protected activity and the harassing and 4 retaliatory actions described herein.
5 24. Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff' s harm. 6 25. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff has 7 incurred and will continue to incur compensatory damages, including lost earnings and other economic 8 damages, in an amount according to proof at trial.
9 26. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff t }
10 has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress and has been generally damaged in an v a
11 amount to be ascertained at trial.
o
a 0
12 27. Defendants authorized and ratified the wrongful acts of their agents and employees, knew in H =
13 advance that their agents and employees were likely to commit such acts and employed them with tti 14 conscious disregard ofthe rights or safety of others, and/ or their officers, directors, or managing agents r
x15 were themselves guilty of oppression, fraud, and malice. Those who retaliated against Plaintiff were a G
16 managing agents who were vested with discretionary authority to make decisions affecting City 17 employee policy regarding significant aspects of the Defendants' business. These managing agents m 18 acted with malice in engaging in the actions detailed herein in that they retaliated against Plaintiff 19 because of the complained about California and federal statutory violations despite knowing it was 20 illegal to do so under California law, in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. In engaging in the 21 aforementioned conduct, Defendants aided, abetted, incited, compelled, and/or coerced unlawful 22 employment practices in violation of Labor Code § 1102. 5 ( b). 23 28. As a further direct and proximate result of the above- described acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has 24 necessarily incurred attorneys' fees and costs.
25 //
26 ll
27 /!
28 //
PLAINTIFF PALOMA ORTIVS COMPLAINT
6 I SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
3 Against All Defendants)
4 29. Plaintiff re- alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth 5 herein.
6 30. The Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits an employer or any person from harassing an 7 employee, applicant, unpaid intent or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract, 8 because of sex and/ or sexual orientation.
9 31. At all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each ofthem, were and are employers, supervisory 10 employees and/ or employees subject to the provisions of FEHA. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff Vo
p'
11 was an employee subject to the protections of FEHA.
a0 12 32. Mr. Hernandez, Plaintiff' s supervisor, engaged in unwanted sexual advances towards Plaintiff U
a
13 and engaged in unwanted verbal and/or physical conduct of a sexual nature, all ofwhich was unwanted s
14 and against Plaintiff' s will.
0 w15 33. The terms of Plaintiff' s employment, job benefits, or favorable working conditions were made W16 contingent, by Mr. Hernandez' s words or conduct, on Plaintiff's acceptance of Mr. Hernandez' s forced 17 sexual advances and conduct.
18 34. Defendants, and each of them, are strictly liable under the FEHA for engaging in the above19 mentioned conduct because Mr. Hernandez was Plaintiff' s supervisor. 20 35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered special damages 21 in the form of lost earnings, benefits, and/ or out- of-pocket expenses in an amount according to proof 22 at the time of trial. As a further direct and proximate result of these Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff will 23 suffer additional special damages in the form of lost future earnings, benefits, and/ or other prospective 24 damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 25 36. As a fiu-ther direct and proximate result of these Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered 26 mental and emotional pain, distress, and discomfort, all to her detriment and damage in amounts not 27 fully ascertained but within the jurisdiction of this court and subject to proof at the time of trial. 28 PLAINTIFF PALOMA ORTIVS COMPLAINT
7 1 37. By engaging in the conduct alleged herein, these Defendants, and each of them, acted 2 oppressively, maliciously, fraudulently, and/ or outrageously toward Plaintiff, with conscious disregard 3 for her known rights and with the intention of causing, and/ or willfully disregarding the probability of 4 causing, unjust and cruel hardship to Plaintiff. In so acting, these Defendants intended to and did vex, 5 injure, and annoy Plaintiff.
6 38. Plaintiff is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney' s fees pursuant to California Government 7 Code § 12965( b), and appropriate and effective equitable or injunctive relief pursuant to California 8 Government Code § 12965( c).
9 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
10 WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
U
11 Against All Defendants)
a <0
12 39. Plaintiff re- alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though set forth HF- u
W
13 herein.
y„
14 40. Irrespective of any employment contract, the Employer Defendants' right to discharge Plaintiff w
15 was subject to limits imposed by public policy of the State of California.
Wa 16 41. It is settled that an employer' s discharge of an employee in violation of a fundamental public O 17 policy embodied in a constitutional or statutory
c
P y y provision gives rise to a tort action for wrongful 18 termination in violation of public policy.
19 42. Employer Defendants' discharge of Plaintiff violated the public policy of the State of 20 California, as expressed in provisions of the California Labor Code including but not limited to, the 21 FEHA, the California Constitution, and California Labor Code § 1102. 5. Such violations may serve 22 as the basis of an action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. See Lazar v. Superior 23 Court( 1996) 12 Cal, 4th 631.
24 43. Plaintiff' s employment was terminated by Defendants in retaliation for making several 25 protected complaints regarding Defendants' unlawful practices and her refusal to participate in such 26 practices.
27 44. Such actions are unlawful in violation of the laws and public policy of the State of California, 28 and have resulted in damages and injury to Plaintiff, including general damages in an amount to be
PLAINTIFF PALOMA ORTIZ' S COMPLAINT
8 1 proven at trial.
2 45. As a direct and proximate result of said wrongful acts by Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and 3 will continue to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits, along with other 4 incidental and consequential damages and losses, all in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 5 Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 6 3287 and any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest. 7 46. As direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered and will 8 continue to suffer emotional distress, loss of earnings, future loss of earnings, loss of status and future 9 status, loss of other employment benefits and job opportunities all to her damage in a sum to be 10 established according to proof.
U o
p`
z
11 47. As a direct and proximate result of said wrongful acts by Defendants, Plaintiff has incurred 06 o
12 attorneys' fees in an amount to be determined, for which Plaintiff claims a sum to be established Wo 13 according to proof.
y
14 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
O
15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:
W
o
16 1. For an award ofall actual, consequential, compensatory, and incidental financial losses suffered 0 Q 17 by Plaintiff, including lost wages, back pay, front pay, and lost employment benefits in an amount of U
o
18 at least$ 250, 000;
19 2. For an award of general and special damages, including from the emotional distress and mental 20 anguish suffered by Plaintiff in an amount of$250,000; 21 3. Penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 1102. 5;
22 4. Penalties pursuant to the FEHA,
23 5. For an award ofPlaintiff' s attorneys' fees and costs under applicable statutory bases, including 24 California Labor Code section 1102. 5( b), 12965 ( b), and the FEHA, and for prejudgment interest under 25 Civil Code § 3287 or 3288, and other applicable statutory bases; 26 6. For declaratory relief against Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, employees, 27 representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with theirs that engaging in each of the 28 practices complained ofin this Complaint are unlawful; and
PLAINTIFF PALOMA ORTIZ' S COMPLAINT
9 1 7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 2 3 Respectfully submitted,
4 5 Dated: September 7, 2023 PAYTON EMPLOYMENT LAW, PC
6 By:
7 Marissa L. Si ons,
Rayne A. Br wn, Esq.
S
Johnny D. Griggs, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
4 PALOMA ORTIZ
10 U
11 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
o U
a < 0
12 Plaintiff PALOMA ORTIZ hereby demands a jury trial for the causes of action set forth herein.
W F- 4
Q 13
W
14 Dated: September 7, 2023 PAYTON EMPLOYMENT LAW, PC
axw
15 11"/ q
W 16
By
Marissa L. Si mons, sq.
a
Rayne A. Brown, Esq.
17 Johnny D. Griggs, Esq.
U
r Attorneys for Plaintiff
18 PALOMA ORTIZ
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
PLAINTIFF PALOMA ORTIZ' S COMPLAINT
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ( ADR)
INFORMATION PACKAGE
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF( S) AND/ OR CROSS- COMPLAINANT( S):
Rule 3. 221( c) of the California Rules of Court requires you to serve a copy of the ADR Information Package along with the complaint and/ or cross- complaint.
California Rules of Court— Rule 3. 221
Information about Alternative Dispute Resolution ( ADR) a) Each court shall make available to the plaintiff, at the time of filing of the complaint, an ADR Information Package that includes, at a minimum, all of the following:
1) General information about the potential advantages and disadvantages of ADR and descriptions of the principal ADR processes.
2) Information about the ADR programs available in that court, including citations to any applicable local court rules and directions for contacting any court staff responsible for providing parties with assistance regarding ADR. 3) Information about the availability of local dispute resolution programs funded under the Dispute Resolutions Program Act ( DRPA), in counties that are participating in the DR-PA. This information may take the form of a list of the applicable programs or directions for contacting the county' s DRPA coordinator. 4) An ADR stipulation form that parties may use to stipulate to the use of an ADR process.
b) A court may make the ADR Information Package available on its website as longas paper copies are also made available in the clerk' s office. c) The plaintiff must serve a copy of the ADR Information Package on each defendant along with the complaint. Cross- complainants must serve a copy of the ADR Information Package on any new parties to the action along with the cross- complaint.
L 1200 Rev. Dec. 2019 Pagel of 4
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
ADR Information
Introduction.
Most civil disputes are resolved without filing a lawsuit, and most civil lawsuits are resolved without a trial.
The courts and others offer a variety of Alternative Dispute Resolution ( ADR) processes to help people resolve disputes without a trial. ADR is usually less formal, less expensive, and less time-consuming than a trial. ADR can also give people more opportunity to determine when and how their dispute will be resolved.
BENEFITS OF ADR.
Using ADR may have a variety of benefits, depending on the type of ADR process used and the circumstances of the particular case. Some potential benefits of ADR are summarized below.
Save Time. A dispute often can be settled or decided much sooner with ADR; often in a matter of months, even weeks, while bringing a lawsuit to trial can take a year or more.
Save Money. When cases are resolved earlier through ADR, the parties may save some of the money they would have spent on attorney fees, court costs, experts' fees, and other litigation expenses.
Increase Control Over the Process and the Outcome. In ADR, parties typically play a greater role in shaping both the process and its outcome. In most ADR processes, parties have more opportunity to tell their side of the story than they do at trial. Some ADR processes, such as mediation, allow the parties to fashion creative resolutions that are not available in a trial. Other ADR processes, such as arbitration, allow the parties to choose an expert in a particular field to decide the dispute.
Preserve Relationships. ADR can be a less adversarial and hostile way to resolve a dispute. For example, an experienced mediator can help the parties effectively communicate their needs and point of view to the other side. This can be an important advantage where the parties have a relationship to preserve.
Increase Satisfaction. In a trial, there is typically a winner and a loser. The loser is not likely to be happy, and even the winner may not be completely satisfied with the outcome. ADR can help the parties find win- win solutions and achieve their real goals. This, along with all of ADR' s other potential advantages, inay increase the parties' overall satisfaction with both the dispute resolution process and the outcome,
Improve Attorney- Client Relationships. Attorneys may also benefit from ADR by being seen as problernsolvers rather than combatants. Quick, cost-effective, and satisfying resolutions are likely to produce happier clients and thus generate repeat business from clients and referrals oftheir friends and associates.
DISADVANTAGES OF ADR.
ADR may not be suitable for every dispute.
Loss of protections. If ADR is binding, the parties normally give up most court protections, including a decision by a judge or jury under formal rules of evidence and procedure, and review for legal error by an appellate court.
L1200 Rev. Dec. 2019 Page 2 of
Less discovery. There generally is less opportunity to find out about the other side' s case with ADR than with litigation. ADR may not be effective if it takes place before the parties have sufficient information to resolve the dispute.
Additional costs. The neutral may charge a fee for his or her set- vices. If a dispute is not resolved through ADR, the parties may have to put time and money into both ADR and alawsuit.
Effect of delays if the dispute is not resolved. Lawsuits must be brought within specified periods of time, known as statues of limitation. Parties must be careful not to let a statute of limitations run out while a dispute is in an ADR process.
TYPES OF ADR IN CIVIL CASES.
The most commonly used ADR processes are arbitration, mediation, neutral evaluation and settlement conferences.
Arbitration. In arbitration, a neutral person called an " arbitrator" hears arguments and evidence from each side and then decides the outcome of the dispute. Arbitration is less formal than a trial, and the rules of evidence are often relaxed. Arbitration may be either " binding" or " nonbinding." Binding arbitration means that the parties waive their right to a trial and agree to accept the arbitrator's decision as final.
Generally, there is no right to appeal an arbitrator' s decision. Nonbinding arbitration means that the parties are free to request a trial if they do not accept the arbitrator' s decision.
Cases for Which Arbitration May Be Appropriate. Arbitration is best for cases where the parties want another person to decide the outcome of their dispute for them but would like to avoid the formality, time, and expense of a trial. It may also be appropriate for complex matters where the parties want a decision-maker who has training or experience in the subject matter ofthe dispute.
Cases for Which Arbitration May Not Be Appropriate. If parties want to retain control over how their dispute is resolved, arbitration, particularly binding arbitration, is not appropriate. In binding arbitration, the parties generally cannot appeal the arbitrator' s award, even if it is not supported by the evidence or the law. Even in nonbinding arbitration, if a party requests a trial and does not receive a more favorable result at trial than in arbitration, there may be penalties.
Mediation. In mediation, an impartial person called a " mediator" helps the parties try to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the dispute. The mediator does not decide the dispute but helps the parties communicate so they can try to settle the dispute themselves. Mediation leaves control of the outcome with the parties.
Cases for Which Mediation May Be Appropriate. Mediation may be particularly useful when parties have a relationship they want to preserve. 5o when family members, neighbors, or business partners have a dispute, mediation may be the ADR process to use. Mediation is also effective when emotions are getting in the way of resolution. An effective mediator can hear the parties out and help them cormmunicate with each other in an effective and nondestructive manner.
Cases for Which Mediation May Not Be Appropriate. Mediation may not be effective if one of the parties is unwilling to cooperate or compromise. Mediation also may not be effective if one of the parties has a significant advantage in power over the other. Therefore, it may not be a good choice if the parties have a history of abuse or victimization.
Neutral Evaluation. In neutral evaluation, each patty gets a chance to present the case to a neutral person called an " evaluator." The evaluator then gives an opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of each party' s evidence and arguments and about how the dispute could be resolved. The evaluator is L 1200 Rev. Dec. 2019 Page 3 of 4
often an expert in the subject matter of the dispute. Although the evaluator's opinion is not binding, the parties typically use it as a basis for trying to negotiate a resolution of the dispute.
Cases for Which Neutral Evaluation May Be Appropriate. Neutral evaluation may be most appropriate in cases in which there are technical issues that require special expertise to resolve or the only significant issue in the case is the amount of damages.
Cases for Which Neutral Evaluation May Not Be Appropriate. Neutral evaluation may not be appropriate when there are significant personal or emotional barriers to resolving the dispute.
Settlement Conferences. Settlement conferences may be either mandatory or voluntary. In both types of settlement conferences, the parties and their attorneys meet with a judge or a neutral person called a settlement officer" to discuss possible settlement of their dispute. The judge or settlement officer does not make a decision in the case but assists the parties in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the case and in negotiating a settlement. Settlement conferences are appropriate in any case where settlement is an option. Mandatory settlement conferences are often held close to the date a case is set for trial.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
In addition to mediation, arbitration, neutral evaluation, and settlement conferences, there are other types of ADR, including conciliation, fact finding, mini- trials, and summary jury trials. Sometimes parties will try a combination of ADR types. The important thing is to try to find the type or types of ADR that are most likely to resolve your dispute.
To locate a dispute resolution program or neutral in your community:
Contact the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Consumer Information Center, toll free, at 1- 800- 852- 5210
Contact the Orange County Bar Association at ( 949) 440- 6700 Look in the telephone directories under" Arbitrators" or" Mediators" Low cost mediation services are provided under the Orange County Dispute Resolution Program Act DRPA). For information regarding DRPA, contact:
OC Human Relations ( 714) 480- 6575, mediator@ochumanrelations. org Waymakers ( 949) 250- 4058
For information on the Superior Court of California, County of Orange court ordered arbitration program, refer to Local Rule 360.
The Orange County Superior Court offers programs for Civil Mediation and Early Neutral Evaluation ENE). For the Civil Mediation program, mediators on the Court' s panel have agreed to accept a fee of 300 for rip to the first two hours of a mediation session. For the ENE program, members of the Court' s panel have agreed to accept a fee of $ 300 for up to three hours of an ENE session. Additional information on the Orange County Superior Court Civil Mediation and Early Neutral Evaluation ( ENE) programs is available on the Court' s website at www.occourts. org.
L 1200 Rev. Dec. 2019 Page 4 of 4
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR NO.: FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME:
FIRM NAME:
STREET ADDRESS: For your protection
CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: and privacy, please
TELEPHONE NO.: FAX NO.: Press the Clear "I his
E- MAIL ADDRESS:
ATTORNEY FOR( name):
t}t' 1Tl button after y O O
are done printing this
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE ft-wrrT
JUSTICE CENTER:
Central- 700 Civic Center Dr. West, Santa Ana, CA 92 7 0 1- 4045 Civil Complex Center- 751 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 9270 1- 45 1 2 Harbor— Newport Beach Facility— 4601 Jamboree Rd., Newport Beach, CA 92660- 2595 North— 1275 N. Berkeley Ave., P. O. Box 5000, Fullerton, CA 92838- 0500 West— 8141 13"' Street, Westminster, CA 92683- 4593
PLAINTIFF/ PETITIONER:
DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT:
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ( ADR) STIPULATION CASE NUMBER:
Plaintiff( s)/ Petitioner( s),
and defendant( s)/ respondent( s),
agree to the following dispute resolution process:
Mediation
Arbitration ( must specify code)
Under section 1141. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Under section 1280 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Neutral Case Evaluation
The ADR process must be completed no later than 90 days after the date ofthis Stipulation or the date the case was referred, whichever is sooner.
I have an Order on Court Fee Waiver( FW- 003) on file, and the selected ADR Neutral( s) are eligible to provide pro bono services.
The ADR Neutral Selection and Party List is attached to this Stipulation.
We understand that there may be a charge for services provided by neutrals. We understand that participating in an ADR process does not extend the time periods specified in California Rules of Court, rule 3. 720 et seq.
Date:
SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY) ( SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY) Date:
SIGNATURE OF DEFENDANT OR ATTORNEY) ( SIGNATURE OF DEFENDANT OR ATTORNEY)
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION( ADR) STIPULATION
Approved for Optional Use California Rules of Court, rule 3. 221 L1270( Rev. March 2019)
Becerra, Alexis
From: Jackie Angel Investor <
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 11: 17 AM
To: eComment; Durham, Daniel
Cc: Vazquez, Benjamin; Ryberg, Erinn
Subject: Rita Ramirez v. City of Santa Ana,
Attachments: Rita Ramirez v. City of Santa Ana. pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Public Records Request Rita Ramirez v. City of Santa Ana, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30- 2022- 01287702- CU- 0 E- NJC
Police Administrative Manager" detailing police chief' s gang loyalty test defunct gang Santa Ana PD is fired here, and was given a domestic abuse restraining order not to come near us. FYI
i
tectronicall llod by: m erio' gouTf, gf.Califorr} id, GQun of Orang% 10121/ 2022 1212,155 IOW 4«202 41287702- - 1a DE- MG- . 4- DAVID H, YAMASAK.I, Clerk oaf the CoUrt' i y Kr Trent, Ossify Clark, SUMMONS FOR Q(XW7 USK ONLY
saW PAPA Iist bE Ili t; ovM
NOTIC9, TO DEFENDANT,
AVI at=1 AL 06 MAN ADC)).,
CITY C) P ", NTA AM, an entity of unknown. origin, and
T DES 1 - 50, ' 1tC tR 4a S3' r
OF THE e.'XDtF,NC1L.
Ro tm yeas hausb ra open, Ttm epos, + fdn ide against yaxr sithi tlrynur.kra 0beard uttiless n r a wlfl Yi Ci dnyt;_. aid the i s5r n] titln ts'alr?t.„ Y Pl va 3Q J Iq M. DAY4 attar lbla punrlttpna. and legal p rs are, sorvad on. roa toAle. a uvtitls.n rasprrm4 atthis: caprt arW have.a copy. semd n t plalnW Alath or P'Wne oall vvilinat protettyou.^ fourwi foo response most WIII p0perteoal form ifyouwantiha aaiart to hegryout s .: Cliara islt ybe: a:ca rard ft r"it Ott you 1 e fc+ryertr rasprr[s ybu can-lind: ltx a ourtdrmus and n[ pre infurmatton at pte Caftrnta apur(s I nAn a}f H ip nt r tt aa, rtdrst . ca.paaraallfralp), your. G.Purty law*, racy, orthe 00orthoum nssrsst" il If,you cannot pay the llllpo f ; oak tho murutlork f&a fea:waiver roarai, if you do nutfiteyoiii ruspanso 6n tim yrau may lose the sass by 0fault, and your wages, money, and property may, ha taken 4milhputtt r' her Warnk) D forri ffto: court Ch k le"qit[ r
Ift.01 1% iaro[ Wti, Yad Ffigy r t(t atP rl 1Wtnz ilghtaway IfyyWi do irotkn d etorney,: yatrrna} w.dritto aajl an etteFh y' re%mWl servo; If yov n( O aftdrd. an, attofney, you may hR eagibte fiar lr { egai, seryir s€ rapt a npt' 1pmllt legal seryfCas , rgg[ air, You oan lgcta ese n snprprlt rdtl[13i at' the Ctatfforula Lepal' Seruic6 77R& SIte( dip +. la[? lfs c IilarY i r r j; the Ga' lllPIA Gourtt QW 10a t(- Help trentat
t# ukt..€ tl tritfti a 8.gbv/ selth lp},> t by46[ ta'r3tingYy k fipr l t CEtA Or d Uhtp a3 BgRST i 9rl, l# f AB r 191 f tl s a t} Utpry if n' fQr SP9f4 d i B 8i1 p
prr atly:petgemerlt;pr arbitriwon aWar41'$1A,f M 0 Wra Irf a 4vo w4ae. Thw"Ir gmt'•sOn mmthe gaid Worethe Alf!Will diSMAU the tote. AMO) La han d6marfr wba. Sr no risapphdo oetairo de 0e V , ta;coft pueda cdeeddir on au eoratia. sin muchpr so vermin: teq.ie Ilitoronamp a T&
rtiftrnt
u
pr
e ,- Ot4 Gad" CHAR EMPAW da r7dsde qdo Ta 16Kgu6n# etas 1gLg4)j ypad" 401"- part; d" ejrtar ahe ra$,pnesto por64drko on-asts aFr#e y" 00" sus gnim ue urns: cts T at darnandarr , Nitta cart j tma 11 r, d teJef rdpa p prtrf tz ; tr: reeptiosts per esctdta ttene sue:#star prt tb n0ta' 0gal ttaapfd 1 Yasex puep a a' Sv i so art cQrie. E's.pa, bo que haye&n tormd1j6 490 U atedPW de aWP0* 8u rasps aSw. Five a edcbrflr r aatriS ar riurar r: r . 1p cot y ttptia tl rarre rr r dd Centro cda Ayr 4e tps 0"' a do attf Ptdt3( t a rsurs rtu ca g l";:err) p br? frrrll " tom draw . rp aeiddp c fr n aodf 40 , ta qWW% rrrt ad pis puorte papr is i,,00ia Ue: son dlbrr; p ta. ed " Padio' do la p fa qus; la drs tdn dorYr#ufardo. T akap8i p Itpgo de r4uofos Sf 0 prowafa arr.mmiosta ffampo, P.140de perdurW, C" P per l a pp}emiento y'0 Volta to p gtattaf str Suedes,,# firBltp, V dr8er aa ids adv rdoto, dray, s gtilatYos ales, ff-i crttfraftd de. gueifahve : , a dp t . Jivr rdf tatdar . Sl' iitiErna as rg i, pimpeliarrs aUn milpx r r rdrP e prlus, 41nr1 pt r . P r: art a g'ads s p sibta s ua pmpla n Ppo rpqvr`Sl[ 2s pare n btarrar, ervp las, rfterdes d un prYa r ru rwr#rra.S lsgadas strr ems. d+ itt ru F ttt ant l fra r stnS 9r adrr S ale lucro en at s#ks" v ek Ca}ITcsrhta t gal5erariu+t'®„ uAa la ih 1pitaNdhrnfe l F), err e1'.Ga>atre ds e lns d# g da It atxtda;( WWu. sut ortc m00y) ra p-00JAndmrorn araOWrrn cgts. ourty a et atrtatt do a > 1f1 lint J,'' irf dla°sier a ap aslairtarlas+ dogs`,yi s. at, s xrfn, rlmprte r r r?arnt ti ta ectal tridarr~ c ra d8ri fr. f?p a r S cdp:vatpr 1bh ra rtredd ti#a sur as s. rr ttrt>#Aran Slbn de zrt ttra)e en an vasa d&> Pmaho r l'trrd. Tiorap quo, xre ' gf a irrart7err dt:'! a' t+ d® axfe qua Ea C r}a uot s ch®.`. c so.
Tlys riWrl end ikdd re_0 i f tho., wort is
d r k Or-' r] ge' aunty lAperidfCo,ttft ng u
lndrrd#rr drdtq"dla srl Forth Justine Gate,
Irro3 :
1044A lta##
12`y6 North, Ykeloy i#ueilu
wt
ruji r on, CA, 063.2
Thy . mo, oddness ehdteisphone number of plaintiff a1€otr ey, c.plaarstif} without An attrarney, 15 fnd frt re is dir;edbrt d nGnrero de telufana d01 aMdo del domandan , D d6i domitrd404 quo at, s}.r em nr. Ord o 1.34 j 0.5 VAIL 7
t?Y[ n. Ga. acl , w a c c3 atiri i za dd St3xI 54DI17
B Ya Haw c:x.rkW Wvde r )? 0kd Ajj Ct 11r, $at- 4tO, CA . a:U274 DA s 4
em
1", by t ' Caput
Gixp) i3A7rt11{ i,'YAMA1,4 t, Dl rt f tra. trur
r rleF r) rJ 4dJur9trr)
f s rar oe r is sumrsions, use Proof of8ervice l6f arli7a ins{. rrrti Mgtl` PfUgbA d0 gnlrb,0,00 wda ortatioh u a pl7tsrmulariv rauP f; a t+JP of 8th'nrziom( P0-$-01PA 2i 0 the:Pamon a wd under the 1`100P.us name of
A
CCP 416. 60
C A16 26 t
fun, t raortSoraticrTl) WP 416.70
v. . OUP' 41:13. 40( a nclatlen Dr partria,ship) CCP 416. 00.( auftrixed peraon) dthee.( tpecl ^
Q. by #root1 i delivelly on( di5te); 49 .
PA<[¢ I ut t
F' mnA. fAr( rigr[ d Uam
JSaJuv N1 otf3 1'itGrr q. SUMMONS S4SI@i7P: iyiiAl. nGnd, 9rt. t 2b9d& EB w, vw rxwrkhhr, u VvWiw_ b. I f
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR COURT USE ONLY STREET ADDRESS: q 275 N. Berkeley Ave
MAILINGADDRESS: 1275 N. Berkeley Ave FILED
WPOR100 COUP t' OP CALMRNIA CITY AND ZIP CODE: Fullerton 92838 COOKY Wr OnANQ5 BRANCH NAME: North Justice Center
PLANTIFF: Rita Ramirez
DEFENDANT: City of Santa Ana
oct 25,
of the2Superior Court
Short Title; RAMIREZ VS. CITY OF SANTA ANA By: K, TRENT, Deprrty
NOTICE OF HEARING
CASE NUMBER:
30- 2022- 01287702- CU- O E- NJC
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Please take notice that a( n), Case Management Conference has been scheduled for hearing on 04/ 13/ 2023 at 08: 30: 00 AM in Department N15 of this court, located at North Justice Center.
Plaintiff( s)IPetitioner( s) to provide notice to all defendant( s)/ respondent( s). Parties who file pleadings that add new parties to the proceeding must provide notice of the Case Management Conference to the newly added parties.
i
IWORTA R.;Prior to your heating date, totem chwk the Co rt`s website for the,most cuffent instrucfiong regarding how to appear for your head:and access services that are available to anwer you questiGns, Cif Matters- s: lfwww- c - oxr ` media- xe ti sfcivil- ht l P at Health- h - mg s_ g-j - lytil r t•- crt[ t-hea . htm Appellate: Division- s c rts.aa ia- f law a[s-rccot _
1l ' o# liTA TE: Antes& Es legit de su a diencia, visite el s.it%a web de la C+xte para saber des sm las MCCw ses mis actuAes para participaren la audiencia y toes acceso a i s servicios disponibles para responder as us preglantas.
Ca.um Civiles- https:/ hnyiv. c= ts.orWP edict relatit alci - Itutl Casos de Probate y
Salud h ntal- https_i/nmy rmawts. or ,_„ ccl12: relatiQnL` b - mental- health. himI Divisi do apelaci - l psJ/w yy:occ tat _ cr t da latio falap is, re ds hunt l : A THONG: Tru& ngAy phiiin tea c& quk vi, voi 1 i tra m t do' bi& h tg hu6ng din 67 t v6 c h. ra hAu phi L t6a. 1da q v. viti6p con nh dick va hiEn c6 d. iN ftnh*n the maic eat quk vi.
Van D8 Din Sit J/ . pccox . ea a- sc civil-html
Thd T i Chh i e Khbe Tinh` l to- ht s x tts_gr re oba - g al- t1a: h Ban phi: : h . 11, L vw a c ult;s_c rclat€ app ats-r a A Clerk of the Court, By: Deputy
NOTICE OF HEARING Pago' I
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFORANGE
North Justice Center
1275 N. Berkeley Ave
Fullerton 92838
SHORT TITLE. RAMIREZ VS. CITY OF SANTA ANA
CLERK' S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
CASE NUMBER:
30-2022-01287702- CU- OE- NJC
certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that a true copy of the above Notice of Hearing has been placed for collection and mailing so as to cause it to be mailed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid pursuant to standard court practices and addressed as indicated below. The certification occurred at Fullerton , California, on 10/2512022. Following standard court practice the mailing will occur at Sacramento, California on 10/ 26/ 2022.
Clerk of the Court, by: Deputy
LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN LAW OFFICES OF JOHN GIRARDI 29900 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD 29900 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 CLERK' S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL Page: 2
V31013a( June 2004) Code of Clvil Procedure, 4 ccpio13( a) Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 10/ 21/ 2022 12: 12: 55 PM. 30- 2022- 01287702- CU- OE- NJC- ROA# 3- DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By K. Trent, Deputy Clerk.
CM- 010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY( Name, State earnumbe, and address); FOR COURT USE ONLY Lawrence L. Lennemann, Law Office of Lawrence J. Lennemann, SBNt 134108 John A. Girardi, Law Offices of John Girardi, 5BN: 54917 29900 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
TELEPHONE NO.: ( 310) 265- 5707 FAx NO,( 0ptronal);
E• MAILADDRESS: lennemannle@gmail. com
ATTORNEY FOR( Name)., plaintiff, Rita Ramirez
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
STREETADDRESS:
orange County Superior Court st
MAILINGADDRESS; North. Justice Center
CITY AND ZIP CODE: I 1275 North Berkeley Avenue
BRANCH NAME: I Fullerton, CA 92832
CASE NAME; Rita Ramirez, an Individual vs.
City of Santa Ana, an entity of unknown origin and DOSS 1- 50, Inclusive CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER:
0 2022 12877U2 OU- OE• NjC CM Unlimited i-imited
Amount Amount J Counter ® toinder
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant JUDGE:
Judge Nathan Vu
exceeds$ 25, 000) $ 25, 000 or less) ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3. 402) DEPT,:
Items 1- 6 below must be corn lsted see Insfrucflons on age 2.
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto( 22) Breach of contracllwarranty( 06) Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3. 400- 3. 403) Uninsured motorist( 40) Rule 3. 740 collections( 09) Antitrust/ Trade regulation( 03) Other PUPDlWD( Personal InjurylProperty
Other collections( 09) Construction defect( 10)
DamagelWrongiul Death) Tort
Insurance coverage( 18) Mass tort( 40)
Asbestos( 04) Other contract( 37) Secludes litigation( 28) Product Ilability( 24) Real Property
Envlronmentairroxic tort( 30)
Medical malpractice( 45) Eminent domainiinverse Insurance coverage claims arising from the Other PIIPDiWD 23 above listed provisionally complex case condemnation( 14) types( 41)
Non- PIIPDIWD( Other) Tort Wrongful eviction( 33)
Business tortlunfair business practice( 07)
Other real property( 26) Enforcement of Judgment
Civil rights( 08) Unlawful Detainer Enforcement of judgment( 20) Defamation( 13) Commercial( 31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud( 10) Residential( 32) RICO( 27)
Intellectual property( 19) Drugs( 38) Other complaint( not specified above) ( 42) Professional negligence( 25)
Other n
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other on- PliPDiWD tort( 35} Asset forfeiture( 05) Partnership and corporate governance( 21) Employment Petition re: arbitration award( 11) E10111her petition( not specified above) ( 43) ElWrongful termination( 36) Writ of mandate( 02)
Other employment( 15) d Other judicial review( 39)
2. This case ® is ® is not complex under rule 3, 400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case Is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. Large number of separately represented parfies d. Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more Issues that will be time- consuming to resolve courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal c. ® Substantial amount of documentary evidence
court
f. Substantial postjudgrnent judicial supervision
3. Remedies sought( check all that apply): a. Omonetary b. nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c, ® punitive
4. Number of causes of action( specify): SAlrabor Code 1102. 5;( 2) Retaliation; 43lniacriminationr( 4) naraooment ( 5) Pailure to Take Corrective Action
5. This case ® is Is not a class action suit,
B. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. ( You may use M- 015.) Date: October 21, 2022
Lawrence : T. Lennemann
TYPE OR PRINT NAME) SIGNATU F OR ATTO EY FOR PARTY)
NOTICE
Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding( except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Famlly Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions.
File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
If this case is complex under rule 3.400 at seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding.
Unless this Is a collections case under rule 3, 740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only, PP
FoudlRc[ a cau 1 IofGIlfomlaUse Cal. Rules of ou f, Mea 2. 30, gg 220 3 400- 33, 403 3, 740; CM• 09o[ Rsv. 5oplem erM02ll ® CEfflEssnntt» f CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET cal. StendardsorJudiralAdmfnlatratien sti1. 3.10 ceb. com MForl www, courls, ca. gov
CM- 010
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET
To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper( for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through B on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case, If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. Ifthe case has multiple causes of action, check the box thatbest Indicates the primary cause of action.
To assist you In completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, Its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court.
To Parties in Rule 3. 740 Collections Cases. A" collections case" under rule 3. 740 is defined as an. action for recovery of money owed In a sum stated to be certain that is not more than$ 25, 000, exclusive of interest and attorney' s fees, arising from a transaction In which property, services, or money was acquired on credit, A collections case does not include an action seeking the following:( 11 tart damages,( 2) punitive damages,( 3) recovery of real property,( 4) recovery of personal property, or( 5) a prejudgment writ of attachment The Identification of a case as a rule 3. 740 collections case on this form means that It will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3, 740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740.
To Parties In Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case Is complex under rule 3. 400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the A plalntifrs designation, a counter- designation that the case Is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex.
CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Auto Tart Contract
Auto( 22)- Personal Injury/ Property Breach of ContractlWarranty,( 06) Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation( Cal.
Rules of Court Rules 3. 400- 3, 403 Damage/ Wrongful Death Breach of Rental/ Lease AntitrustfTrade Regulation )03 Uninsured Motorist( 46) ( if the Contract ( not unlawful detainer g ( ) case involves an or wrongful eviction uninsured g
Construction Defect( 10)
motorist Claims Involving Mass Tort 4 claim subject to CantracWUarran# y Breach- Seller Securities Litigation 28 (
0)
arbitration, check this item Plaintiff ( not fraud ornegllgence) Environmental/ Toxic To) ( 30) instead ofAuto) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Insurance Coverage ClaiTort( 3
Other Pt1PD1WD( Personal Injuryl OthervBreach of ContractlWarranly arising from provisionally complex Property Damage/ Wrongful Death) Collections( e. g., money owed, open case type listed above) ( 41) Tort book accounts)( 09) Enforcement of Judgment
Asbestos( 04) Collection Case- Seller Plaintiff Enforcement of Judgment( 20) Asbestos Property Damage other Promissory NotelCotleations Abstract of Judgment( Out of Asbestos Personal Injuryl Case County)
Wrongful Death Insurance Coverage( notprovislonally Confession of Judgment ( nonProduct Liability( not asbestos or complex) 08) domestic relations) toxiclanvironmental) ( 24) Auto Subrogation Sister State Judgment Medical Malpractice( 45) Other Coverage Administrative Agency Award Medical Malpractice- Other Contract( 37) not unpaid taxes) Physicians& Surgeons Contractual Fraud PetltionlCertifleation of Entry of Other Professional Health Care Other Contract Dispute Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Malpractice Real Property', Other Enforcement of Judgment Other PI1PDlWD( 23) Eminent Domalnlinverse Case
Premises Liability( e. g,, slip Condemnation( 14) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint and fall) Wrongful Eviction( 33) RICO( 27)
intentional Bodily Injury/ PDMll7 Other Real Property e. Other Complaint notsspecified e. g., assault, vandalism)
P Y( g
f
quiet title)
Property above
P
42 (
p
intentional Infliction of
Mortgage
of Possession of Real Property Declaratory) Relief Only Emotional Distress MoegTitle,Foreclosure
Injunctive ReliefOnl nonNegligent Infliction of
owlet Title Y
Other Real Properly ( not eminent harassment)
Emotional Distress domain, landlo d4enant, or
Mechanics Lien
Other PIIPDIWD foreclosure} Other Commercial Complaint
Nan• PIlPD1WD( Other) Tort Unlawful Detainer
Case ( non- tortfion- complex}
Business Tort/ Unfair Business Commercial( 31)
Other oCivil n- t
Complaint
Practice( 07) Residential( 32)
non tart/ nan complex)
Civil Rights( e. g., discrimination, Drugs( 38)( if the case involves illegal Miscellaneous Civil Petition false arrest)( not civil drugs, check this item; otherwise, Partnership and Corporate harassment) ( 08) report as Commercial or Residential) Governance( 21).
Defamation( e.g., slander, libel) Other Petition( not spacifled 13) Judicial Review above)( 43)
Fraud( 16) Asset Forfeiture( 05) Civil Harassment
Intellectual Properly( 19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award( 11) Workplace Violence Professional Negligence( 26) Writ of Mandate( 02) Elder/ Dependent Adult Legal Malpractice Wrlt-- Administrative Mandamus Abuse
Other Professional Malpractice
Writ- Mandamus on Limited Court Election Contest Case Matter not medical or legal) Petition far Name Change
Writ- Other Limited Court Case Other Non- PIlPDMVD Tort( 35) Review Petition for Relief from Late Employment Other Judicial Review( 39)
Claim
Other Civil Petition Wrongful Termination( 36) Review of Health Officer order Other Employment( IS) Notice of Appeal- Labor
Commissioner Appeals
ev. 5-pleffibet 1. 20211 11111111CIEff Essesdlal CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Fage2of2 cob. com i Fyift-
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 10/ 21/ 2022 12: 12: 55 PM. 30 022- 01287702- CU- OE- NJC- ROA# 2- DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By K. Trent, Deputy Clerk, 1 JOHN A. GIIRARDI, State Bar No. 54917
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN GIRARDI
2 29900 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
3 ( 310) 265- 5787 Telephone
ohn ohn irardilaw. com
4 LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN, State Bar No. 134108
5 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN
29900 Hawthorne Boulevard
6 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
310) 265- 5788 Telephone
7 lennemannle@gmail. com
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
RITA RAMIREZ
9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF ORANGE
12 Assigned for All Purposes
RITA RAMIREZ, an Individual CASE NO.; Judge Nathan Vu
13 30- 2022- 01287702- CU- OE- NJ0
14 PLAINTIFF RITA RAMIREZ' S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, FOR:
15 1) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR
CODE § 1102. 5;
16 vs. 2) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
17 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT;
3) DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
1$ THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
CITY OF SANTA ANA, an entity of unknown ACT;
19 origin; and DOES 1 - 50, Inclusive,
4) HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE
20 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT;
AND
21 5) FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE
22 Defendants. ACTION IN VIOLATION OF FAIR
23 EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
24 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
25 Plaintiff Rita Ramirez(" RAMIREZ" or" Plaintiff'), with knowledge as to her own acts and based 26 27
upon information and belief with regard to all other matters, by and through her attorneys ofrecord, alleges:
28 111
111
a
RAmnmv. C= oFSANTAANA
CASBNO.
COMPLNNP
1 1. RAMIREZ is an individual who, at all times relevant herein, was employed by Defendant 2 City of Santa Ana(" CITY" or" Defendant") as CITY' s Police Administrative Manager at CITY' s business 3 4
office( s) located in the County of Orange, State of California. 5 2. RAMIREZ alleges that CITY is a municipality doing business in the County of Orange, State 6 ofCalifornia. The Santa Ana City Council, as the governing body ofthe City ofSanta Ana, acts, represents, 7 and implements policy on the behalf of CITY.
8 9
3. Defendants CITY and DOE Defendants i through 50 are hereinafter sometimes collectively 10 referred to as" DEFENDANTS".
11 4. On July 18, 2022, RAMIREZ exhausted her administrative remedies by causing CITY to be 12 served with a Government Claim. On July 20, 2022, although CITY, via its Third Party Administrator, 13 14 acknowledged receipt of the claim and stated that it" w[ould] be communicating with [RAMIREZ] in the 15 near future in regard to this matter", RAMIREZ was never contacted and the claim was denied by operation 16 oflaw. Additionally on or about July 18, 2022, RAMIREZ filed a Complaint with the Department of Fair 17 18
Employment and Housing and, on July 25, 2022, RAMIREZ caused both her Complaint and the resulting 19 Right- to- Sue Notice to be served on CITY.
20 5. RAMIREZ is presently not aware ofthe true names and/ or capacities ofDefendants DOES 21 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. RAMIREZ is informed 22 and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that said fictitiously named Defendants are 23 24 directlyand proximately responsible for the injuries and damages alleged herein. RAMIREZ will amend this 25 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of said fictitiously named Defendants when, and if, 26 ascertained.
27 111
28 111
z
RAmnazv. CITYoFSANTAANA CAmNo,
COMPI.AIIIT
1 6. RAMIREZ is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that, at 2 3
all relevant times, each and every Defendant was a principle, agent, employer, employee, manager, 4 supervisor, officer, shareholder and/ or owner of each and every other Defendant, and each and every act 5 and/or omission of each and every Defendant occurred by and through the governing body and/ or 6 management of the Defendant and within the course and scope of such agency and/ or employment and/ or 7 was approved and/ or ratified by the acts and/ or omissions of each and every other Defendant. 8 9
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10 A. After Almost Three Decades of Exemplary Public Service Employment, 11 RAMIREZ was Recruited by CITY to be its Police Administrative Manager. 12 13
7. On July 3, 2017, following decades ofpublic service, RAMIREZ began her career with CITY 14 as the Police Administrative Manager after being actively recruited from her prior employment. 15 8. During RAMIREZ' s 32 years of service in the law enforcement community( five years with 16 CITY), RAMIREZ was consistently a loyal and hard- working employee who received exemplary 17 performance evaluations.
18 19
9. Despite this, on July 7, 2022, RAMIREZ was unlawfully constructively terminated, after 20 suffering retaliation, discrimination and harassment due to circumstances entirely unrelated to her 21 performance. CITY' s termination of, and discrimination, harassment and retaliation against, RAMIREZ 22 23
violates California law, City' s own Municipal Code and policies and procedures and RAMIREZ' s civil 24 service rights.
25 B. Initially, CITY' s Police Chief was Thrilled with RAMIREZ and her Work. 26 10. More specifically, by way ofbriefbackground, Chief ofPolice David Valentin was initially 27 28
obviously very comfortable with RAMIREZ when she was hired. 111
3 RAMUEZ V. CITY 01, SANTA ANA CASE Na.
COMPLAINT
1 11. In fact, Valentin told RAMIREZ that the best thing that now-former Deputy Chief Jim 2 Schnabl ever did for the police department was to hire RAMIREZ. 3 4
C. Initially, RAMIREZ Apparently " Passed" CITY' s Police Chiefs Gang-Like 5 Loyalty" Tests.
6 12. Towards the end of February 2018, Valentin called RAMIREZ into his office to discuss 7 loyalty" and to explain his understanding of the concept of " loyalty". 8 9
13. During this same time frame, as RAMIREZ' s then- supervisor Deputy Chief Jim Schnabl had 10 been on leave after being injured on duty, Valentin put RAMIREZ IR RZ in charge of a proj ect known as Tri-Tech. 11 14. In mid-March of 2018, Valentin asked RAMIREZ to go photograph Schnabl while he was 12 teaching at a Tri- Tech conference.
13 14
15. As it was well- known that Valentin greatly disliked both Schnabl( as well as former Deputy 15 Chief Doug McGeachy), it was obvious that Valentin' s intent was to " catch" Schnabl doing something 16 "
wrong" and to " gather evidence" against him while be was out on leave. 17 18
16. Valentin made this request by asking: " Are you down for this?" This phrase struck 19 RAMIREZ as odd coming from Valentin as she recognized it as gang term- often used to prove loyalty 20 where a more senior gang member asked an " underling" whether they were willing to do something 21 unsavory for the benefit of the gang.
22 23
17. In retrospect, Valentin was clearly aware that what he had asked RAMIREZ to do was 24 improper'.
25 11l
26 Ill
27 28
1 Had Valentin' s request been legitimate, Valentin should have instructed Internal Affairs to take the photographs. This is just one of many examples of times when Valentin acts as if he can do what he wants, when he wants and how he wants and that normal procedures did and do not apply to him. 4 RMPMZV. C= OFSANTAANA CASHNO.
COMnAI TI'
I
18. As RAMIREZ had only been employed for a few months, although she was very 2 uncomfortable with this request, RAMIREZ felt obligated to tell Valentin that she would do what Valentin 3 4
wanted in order to prove her" loyalty" and maintain her employment. 5 19. By this time, RAMIREZ had heard ramblings about how Valentin operated and did not want 6 to be in the position that others were in when they did not adequately prove or show their" loyalty" to him. 7 20. RAMIREZ did attend the conference, took the photos Valentin requested and sent them to 8 9
him from her work phone.
10 21. RAMIREZ felt dirty and used and as though she was being disloyal to the man who recruited I 1 her for her job but was afraid that if she did not follow through with Valentin' s request that she would be 12 considered" disloyal" and suffer an adverse employment action. 13 14
22. During this time, Valentin met with RAMIREZ on a bi-weekly basis to discuss the Tri- Tech 15 project and was friendly and was very supportive.
16 23. Valentin continued to tell RAMIREZ that she was doing a good job and even personally 17 18
delivered her uniform bars to her office, leaving a note on her desk and placing her Wonder Woman figurine 19 on top of the note.
20 24. Valentin would also routinely acknowledge RAMIREZ in the hallways. 21 25. Valentin regularly met with RAMIREZ and, at times, RAMIREZ would pop in to say" hi" 22 to Valentin and to check in on how he was doing.
23 24
26. On occasions, RAMIREZ and Valentin would have short conversations about family and life 25 in general. RAMIREZ and Valentin would also, on occasion, send each other encouraging text messages. 26 111
27 111
28 111
5 RAMIM,'L V. C]PY ON SANTA" A
CASE NO.
COMI']."' H
I
D. However, CITY' s Police Chief Improperly Begins to View RAMIREZ as 2 Disloyal" for, Inter Alra, Attending the Retirement Party of a then-Deputy 3 4
Chief whom the Police Chief Perceived as an Enemy or Rival. 5 27. Shortly after this time, RAMIREZ received an invitation to Schnabl' s retirement event. 6 28. Commander Jose Gonzalez immediately spoke to RAMIREZ about the invitation and told 7 her that, if she was to attend, " the Chief would not be happy." 8 9
29. Concerned, RAMIREZ spoke with Valentin about what Gonzalez had told her. RAMIREZ 10 wondered: Was this yet another test of RAMIREZ' s " loyalty"? Was she being" jumped in", so to speak? 11 30. During this conversation,Valentin appeared to be okaywith RAMIREZ attending Schnabl' s 12 retirement event.
13 14
31. However, Gonzalez later told RAMIREZ that Valentin had been aware of every person who 15 had attended the retirement event and that it had been" a bad idea" for her to go. 16 E. RAMIREZ is then Threatened for Meeting with Another of the Police Chief' s 17 Perceived Rivals/ Enemies, the CITY' s Police Officers Association President 18 19 Gerry Serrano.
20 32. In or about January of 2020, RAMIREZ had a meeting with Police Officer Association 21 (" POA") President Gerry Serrano. RAMIREZ wanted to assure that she had a good working relationship 22 with the POA and its leadership since RAMIREZ' s subordinate evidence employees were POA members. 23 24
33. As RAMIREZ had come to understand that there were issues between Valentin and Serrano 25 and that Valentin also considered Serrano a" rival", RAMIREZ told Valentin about her upcoming meeting 26 with Serrano prior to it occurring.
27 28
34. This meeting( and subsequent meetings) were strictly business and resulted from RAMIREZ doing her job as a manager.
G
RAMIRFzv. CITYoFSANTAANA CMENo.
COMPIA INi'
1 35. On January 29, 2020, Valentin told RAMIREZ in a telephone call that preceded this meeting 2 with Serrano; " You better be careful who you associate with." 3 4
36. RAMIREZ immediately understood that as threat not to meet with Serrano. 5 37. RAMIREZ then began to notice a lot ofdrama and tension between McGeachy, Schnabl and 6 Peter Semelsburger and others with whom Valentin had" issues." 7 F. CITY, Continuing with its Gang-like Actions, Threatens RAMIREZ to " Pick 8 9
a Camp."
10 38. Around this same time, Gonzalez and then Commander Robert Rodriguez went to 11 RAMIREZ' s office and told her that she needed to " pick a camp." 12 39. ( It was well known that Valentin viewed Serrano as the leader of the other" camp.") 13 14
40. These " camps" had been the subject of much discussion throughout the department and 15 RAMIREZ felt as though she had just been delivered a message from the" gang leader"( i.e. Valentin) via 16 his more senior gang members.
17 41. RAMIREZ wanted no involvement whatsoever with this situation and explained to them that, 18 19 while she worked for Valentin, she was a CITY employee and would not be forced into choosing a" camp". 20 42. RAMIREZ understood that if she chose Valentin' s " camp", she could no longer associate 21 with those who were in Serrano' s " camp".
22 23
43. RAMIREZ was then told that, if she did not pick a" camp", she would end up at the bottom 24 of the hill or bottom of the food chain.
25 44. During this time frame, Gonzalez, Anthony Bertagna and RAMIREZ would often go to 26 lunch.
27 28
45. At the time, RAMIREZ considered Gonzalez a close work friend and felt a lot of pressure from him to pick a" camp".
7 Rmnmz.v, CTCYOFSAmAANA CAmNo.
COMPIAAlw
1 46. However, RAMIREZ was steadfast in her conviction that a professional organization should 2 not work this way and that the Santa Ana citizens expected its CITY employees to protect them from gang 3 4
activity- not to act like one.
5 47. At one point Gonzalez and Rodriguez took RAMIREZ to dinner and again told RAMIREZ 6 that she needed to" pick a camp."
7 8
48. RAMIREZ understood that they liked her and that they were trying to influence her to join 9 Valentin' s" camp."
10 49. RAMIREZ also understood that, ifthey had relayed her firstrefusal to Valentin, RAMIREZ 11 would have already been" cast out."
12 13
50. RAMIREZ again told them that they were not in high school and she would not pick a 14 camp".
15 51. RAMIREZ made it very clear to them that, while she would support Valentin, she was not 16 going to play this game of choosing sides.
17 18
52. RAMIREZ told them that she would not agree to completely disassociate herself from people 19 who were not in Valentin' s " camp" and that she could not- and would not- work that way. 20 53. At this time, RAMIREZ hoped that, as long as she continued to do her job well and. work 21 within the boundaries taking a very neutral position, she would be allowed to simply do her work. 22 23
54. However, Valentin would not allow for that to happen. 24 G. CITY' s Police Chief Retaliated Against RAMIREZ for her Refusal to Pack a 25 Camp."
26 55. It soon became clear that RAMIREZ' s refusal to pick a " camp" had been delivered to 27 Valentin.
28 56. The way that Valentin communicated with RAMIREZ significantly changed. s
RAMIREZV. CrYOFSANfAANA CAmNo
COWIAAINT
1 57. For sake of example, when RAMIREZ attempted to walk into Valentin' s office just to say 2 hi" as she had many times in the past- RAMIREZ was stopped by Valentin' s assistant, Elizabeth Plotnik. 3 4
58. Plotnik made clear to RAMIREZ that she was no longer allowed to just walk in. 5 59. Additionally, although the Tri-Tech project required Valentin' s attention, the bi-weeldy 6 meetings that RAMIREZ and Valentin had been having came to an abrupt stop. 7 60. RAMIREZ then attempted to schedule a few meetings withValentin,only to have him cancel 8 9
each and every one of them.
10 H. CITY Further Retaliated Against RAMIREZ for her Participation in and 11 Opposition to CITY' s Conduct in Violation of the Fair Employment and 12 Housing Act.
13 14
61. In September of2020, a Women Leaders in Law Enforcement conference was conducted on15 line. 16 62. A few women CITY employees decided that, due to the training being virtual, they would 17 attend the conference together in a group at one of the sergeant' s houses. 18 19
63. All the women that attended were contacted by CITY, ordered to report to the station and 20 ordered to participate in the remaining portion of the conference from there. 21 64. Needless to say, this- coupled with CITY' s sexist rude reference to the event as a" pajama 22 party"- created a lot of bad feelings.
23 24
65. Although RAMIREZ only became aware of this incident after the fact, she was asked by the 25 women to attend the remainder of the conference with them at the station. 26 66. RAMIREZ was happy to attend and did so.
27 111
28 111
9 RmniEz v, Cay of SANPA MA Cm No.
COMPLAIN['
1 67. After the conference was over, several of the attendees and RAMIREZ began to have a 2 discussion about how poorly women( both sworn and non- sworn) in the department were being treated under 3 4
Valentin' s leadership.
5 68. RAMIREZ- as part of management- initially attempted to defend Valentin. 6 69. As soon as Valentin learned ofthis discussion, he instructed Rodriguez to order RAMIREZ 7 to write a" memo" regarding her discussions.
8 9
70. On September 11, 2020, RAMIREZ did as ordered and submitted her 3- page memo which 10 described the" topics of discussion" as:
11 0
The language used towards females versus males such as tone, demeanor, verbiage 12 and condescending behavior";
13 a
Double standards in regards to the way women are treated in general"; 14 Retaliationfor speaking up. Ifa woman complains then they are being` emotional. 15 If a woman makes a ` mistake' then the mistake is magnified or highlighted 16 throughout their career and used against them."
17 18
71. RAMIREZ' s memo also detailed how the women discussed that" this type ofbehavior is the 19 bculture' ofthe department and appears to be condoned by leadership";" how[ Valentin] is perceived to be 20 supportive of this type of behavior"; and that this behavior" starts at the top". 21 72. Of course, Valentin, himself, has also previously been accused of sexual harassment. 22 23
73. Additionally,while Valentin loves to give lip service to the phrase" one team, one mission", 24 he is known throughout the police department as the single largest violator of this philosophy. 25 74. Valentin is not only content with the division in the department but actively fosters it. 26 75. RAMIREZ came to understand that, when she was ordered to" write the memo", her memo 27 28
was actually expected to report back to Valentin regarding who said what to whom so the women at issue could be" dealt with" ( i.e., RAMIREZ had been expected to" rat out" the women).
Ip
RAMMMV, CITYOFSANI'AANA CASHNO,
COMPLARU
1 76. Since RAMIREZ had written her memo in the opposite manner( i.e., to protect the women 2 who had legitimate claims regarding their treatment under Valentin), RAMWZ' s memo- which spoke to 3 4
the tone and message that the women were trying to communicate- displeased Valentin and was ultimately 5 described by him as " very vanilla".
6 77, In sum, Valentin was upset that the memo failed to provide him with the identifying 7 information so that Valentin could use it later to retaliate against the individual women. 8 g
78. ( RAMIREZ is informed and believes that these women have made their own claims against 10 CITY.)
11 79. After RAMIREZ wrote her memo, Valentin went to meet with the women. 12 80. RAMIREZ did not attend that meeting but learned that Valentin simply walked into the room 13 14 accompanied by Rodriguez and Lourdes Ferrer, introduced them to the group and told the women that, if 15 they had any issues with him or anyone in the department, they could report it to either Rodriguez or Ferrer. 16 81. Valentin then turned and left.
17 82. By doing so, Valentin made it abundantly clear that he had no interest whatsoever in 18 19 addressing the real issues set forth in RAMIREZ' s memo. 20 83. Rather, Valentin simply said: " If you have a complaint, see these people." 21 84. Valentin' s abject lack of leadership at this pivotal moment was a serious blow to the 22 department.
23 24
I. CITY Continued to Unlawfully Retaliate Against RAMIREZ. 25 85. Valentin' s demeanor and actions towards RAMIREZ continued to deteriorate and escalate. 26 86. In or around May/June of 2021, a Public Records Act(" PRA') Request was submitted for 27 28
an email from Sergeant Jim Armstrong to Valentin and others. 1! I
RA& mzv. CTPYoFSANTAANA CABENo.
CMUEARU
1 87. Assistant City Attorney Tamara Bogosian reviewed the PRA and provided RAMIREZ with 2 the document to be released.
3 4
88. The document was then released and printed in a local publication. 5 89. Valentin immediately called a meeting- with an approximate 10- minute notification - to 6 include RAMIREZ, Bogosian, Plotnik and others.
7 8
90. ( This was the first time RAMIREZ had met with Valentin- for any reason- in over one year.) 9 91. The obviously- angry Valentin asked why the email had been released. 10 92. RAMIREZ explained that it had been released because it was a responsive public record. 11 93. Despite Bogosian' s specific statement to Valentin that she had instructed RAMIREZ to 12 13
release the document, Valentin became obviously upset with RARMIREZ ( not Bogosian), excused 14 RAMIREZ from the meeting and then continued the meeting with the rest ofthe attendees. 15 94. It was evident that RAMIREZ had clearly become Valentin' s" fall-guy"- first because she 16 refused to pick a" camp", then because she submitted a memo that did not" rat" on others and then because 17 18
she refused to withhold properly responsive documents from a PRA request. 19 J. CITY Continued to Unlawfully Retaliate Against RANIDLF_,Z. 20 95. Shortly afterwards, although RAMIREZ served as the legally-recognized " custodian of 21 records" for CITY who was legally bound to abide by the PRA, Valentin, in an obvious improper effort to 22 23
control publicly released information, removed RAMIREZ from the Dandling of any PRAs that were 24 associated with Valentin or his office, the Voice of OC and the POA( or anyone associated with the POA). 25 96. Rather than Valentin following the law ( and/ or blaming Bogosian for certain decisions), 26 Valentin refused to follow the law, blamed RAMIREZ and began to talk behind RAMIREZ' s back, falsely 27 28
implying to various persons in leadership that RAMIREZ did not know how to do her job. 111
12 RAM RPZ V. CM of SANTA ANA CAsL+No.
COMPLAINT
1 97. Additionally, Bogosian falsely accused RAMIREZ of attempting to release documents to 2 Serrano and, thereafter, Valentin repeated this false claim at a senior management meeting. 3 4
98. Then, after CITY was sued for failing to release records related to the Brandon Lopez 5 shooting, Sergio Enriquez improperly attempted to blame RAMIREZ for responding - although she had 6 responded in the exact manner that she had been instructed by him. 7 99. Valentin- in a further attempt to improperly" manage' the information provided( or, more 8 9
accurately, not provided) to Serrano - appointed Enriquez to respond to the PRAs. 10 K. CITY Continued to Unlawfully Retaliate Against RAMIREZ. 11 100. Relative to many ofthe above events, RAMIREZ has been identified as a witness in various 12 13
other legal matters pending against CITY regarding Valentin' s conduct and, to date, has participated in at 14 least three separate interviews in which she provided testimony in cases brought by other employees. 15 101. The FairEmployment andHousingAct protects- not only employees who themselves make 16 retaliation, discrimination and harassment claims but - those, like RAMIREZ who: ( 1) make a charge, 17 18
testify, assist or participate in any manner in proceedings or hearings under the statute ( the " participation 19 clause"); and/ or( 2) oppose acts made unlawful by the statute( the" opposition clause"). Government Code, 20 § 12940( h).
21 102. CITY' s retaliation against RAMIREZ' s for her participation in these matters ( and for 22 23
RAMIREZ' s expressed opposition to Valentin and CITY' s conduct) was clearly additional unlawful 24 retaliation and harassment.
25 L. CITY Continued to Unlawfully Retaliate Against RAMIREZ. 26 103. On January 26, 2022, RAMIREZ attended a meeting and Valentin was in the room and he 27 28
said in front of everyone: " Rita Ramirez, you' re still here, huh?", to which RAMIREZ replied: " Yes sir, unless you fired me, and I didn' t know about it."
13 RAmmzv. CITYOPSANPAANA CASHNo.
COMPLAINT
1 104. Valentin then said: " I haven' t seen your name in lights lately". 2 105. RAMIREZ responded: " Just laying low, sir".
3 4
M. As a Result of CITY' s Unlawful Retaliation and harassment, RAMIREZ was 5 Forced. to Take a heave of Absence. CITY Continued to Retaliate. 6 106. On March 15, 2022, RAMIREZ was forced to take a leave of absence as a result ofthe above7 described ongoing treatment.
8 9
107. Although RAMIREZ continued to work part- time from home approving reports and fulfilling 10 certain other responsibilities, she was forced to use her own sick time during this time. 11 108. During this time, CITY, in retaliation, removed the bulk ofresponsibilities from RAMIREZ 12 including all PRA requests even though RAMIREZ was not only the official custodian of records but the 13 14 most trained and qualified individual in the police department), only to give her command authority over 15 the CDC/Facilities- with which RAMIREZ had absolutely no experience. 16 109. RAMIREZ learned about this change- not froxn Valentin himself or from CITY' s Human 17 18
Resources Department but- from a fellow employee who contacted RAMIREZ to ask what had happened. 19 110. RAMIREZ told this employee that she had no idea what the employee was talking about. 20 111. The employee then told RAMIREZ that a department-wide email had gone out which 21 publicized the changes in RAMIREZ' s job responsibilities. 22 23
112. ( This issue was only addressed after RAMIREZ complained to her direct supervisor and later 24 learned that the Police Management Association president met with Valentin.) 25 N. On April 6, 2022, RAMIREZ Made a Formal Written Complaint. 26 113. On April 6, 2022, RAMIREZ submitted an Inappropriate Conduct Complaint Report against 27 2$
Valentin to which CITY failed to appropriately respond. 114. On May 3, then Deputy Chief Eric Paulson sent the following email to Jason Motsick:
111
14 RAMMIJZ V. CrrY OF SANTA ANA CASE N0.
COMPLAINT
I
Attached to this communication is a performance evaluation for Manager Rita Ramirez. Not 2 knowing if Manager Ramirez will return to work, I wanted to ensure her performance was documented before my retirement next week. For your awareness, Rita' s evaluation is not due 3 until July 3rd, but I felt compelled to provide the City with my evaluation/ observations ofher 4 performance for nine ( 9) of the 12 months of her rating period." 5 115. Although RAMIREZ is informed and believes that persons specifically substantiated 6 RAMIREZ' s claims when interviewed during the " investigation", on August 25, 2022, CITY provided 7 RAMIREZ with a " Notice of Completion of Investigation" which stated, in pertinent part, that " it was 8 9 determined that the allegations were not sustained" and that CITY" determined that no violation of policy 10 occurred."
11 116. However, as later succinctly stated by Serrano following the results of yet another CITY 12 `,
investigation":
13 14 Clearly the city has no commitment to provide a discrimination and harassment free workplace, rather quite the contrary. There has been numerous complaints and allegations of cover-up, 15 retaliation, excessive force, corruption, etc. yet every single complaint is dismissed in this fashion. 16 Clearly, this is disheartening and again reasons and evidence why the police department is so toxic 17 and the morale is lower that ever with officers leaving and even looking for career changes. i
18 Very, very disappointing!!!"
19 O, On June 20, 2022, RAMIREZ was Constructively Terminated. 20 21
117. On June 20, 2022, RAMIREZ forwarded the following email:
22 As the City is well aware, I have made a complaint regarding the ongoing harassment, discrimination and retaliation that I have endured. I am also aware that other City employees 23 have made similar complaints and endured similar treatment. In fact, it appears my 24 involvement in these other complaints has also led to additional retaliation against me. 25 Despite the City' s knowledge ofthe above, the situation has escalated to the point where my 26 working conditions have become intolerable. As such, and while I previously loved my job and planned to remain employed for additional years, I certainly wished to end my career 27 under different circumstances. Based on all facts regarding this matter I have no choice but to retire from my position with the City, effective July 7, 2022, as returning to work in the 28 current conditions would be impossible.
111
s
RAmmmv. ClrYOPSANTAANA CASBNO.
COMPLAINT
I
Please forward to me today( via email) my fully- executed Performance Evaluation, sent to 2 you early last month by my supervisor Deputy Chief Paulson prior to his retirement. Please also forward to me today ( via email) any necessary documentation to effectuate my 3 retirement. I expect to receive my 5% performance bonus that is due to me on July 3, 2022. 4 Finally, as I have been forced to burn my own time during my forced off absence over the 5 past two months, please confirm today that the City will reimburse me for that time. 6 Please confirm receipt of this email."
7 118. Additionally, CITY refused to both honor RAMIREZ' s earned 5% performance bonus and 8 9
to reimburse RAMIREZ for the personal time she was forced to use as a result of Valentin' s conduct. 10 119. On July 7, 2022, Claimant was constructively terminated. 11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
12 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5
13 14
Against All DEFENDANT' S)
15 120. RAMIREZ realleges Paragraphs 1 through 121 above and incorporates same as though fully 16 set forth herein.
17 121. RAMIREZ, as described more fully above, reported/ disclosed to a government agency and/ or 18 19 law enforcement agency and/ or a person with authority over her or to an employee with authority to 20 investigate, discover, or correct legal violations and/ or noncompliance to DEFENDANTS. RAMIREZ had 21 reasonable cause to believe that the information reported/ disclosed a violation of state, or federal statute 22 23
and/or a violation of and/ or noncompliance with a local, state and/or federal rule and/or regulation[ i.c., 24 Penal Code §§ 186. 22, 1. 3670 and Assembly Bill 958 ( prohibition of gangs among police officers); 25 Government Code §§ 12900- 12999 ( California Fair Employment and Housing Act; Government Code 26 §§ 12945. 2 et seq.); Government Code§§ 6250 et seq.( California Public RecordsAct), Penal Code§ 832. 7. 1 27 28
In response to the disclosures and complaints initiated by RAMIREZ, DEFENDANTS retaliated against RAMIREZ as more fully described herein.
RAmmzv. CITYOPSANTAANA CMENO.
COMPI,AfNT
1 122. Because of the retaliation that RAMIREZ faced, RAMIREZ was constructively terminated 2 i.e., was forced to resign).
3 4
123. DEFENDANTS' treatment of and response to the disclosures, complaints and grievances 5 filed by RAMIREZ was in violation of Labor Code § 1102. 5. 6 124. RAMIREZ' s reporting/ disclosure of information was a contributing factor in RAMIREZ' s 7 constructive termination.
8 9
125. Asa direct result ofDEFENDANTS' actions as alleged above, RAMIREZ.suffered harm and 10 injury that was legally ( proximately) caused by the conduct of DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury 11 includes, but is not limited to, special ( economic) damages, general ( non- economic) damages, litigation 12 13
costs, future damages and past damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors 14 and such further relief as shown at the time of Trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional ofthis Court. 15 126. Additionally, as a direct andproximate result ofthe above- described acts ofDEFENDANTS, 16 RAMIREZ has necessarily incurred attorney' s fees and costs and she is entitled, per, inter alia, Labor Code 17 98. 6( b), § 1105, 1102.5( f), Code ofCivil Procedure § 1021. 5 and Assembly Bill 1947 to the reasonable 18 19 value of such attorney' s fees and costs.
20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
21 RETALIATION IN' VIOLATION OF THE
22 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
23 24 Against All DEFENDANTS)
25 127. RAMIREZ realleges Paragraphs 1 through 126 above and incorporates same as though filly 26 set forth herein.
27 111
28 Ill
RAMumv. CmuSAN'rAANA
CASIINo.
CONII% AINT
1 128. Section 12940, et. seq. ofthe California Government Code wakes it unlawful for an employer 2 to retaliate against an employee in " terms, conditions or privileges of employment" because of their 3 4
protected status. The Fair Employment and Housing Act(" FEHA") protects, not only employees who make 5 a FEHA claim, but also, those who oppose acts made unlawful by the statute and/ or testify, assist or 6 participate in any manner in proceedings or hearings. 7 129. As referenced above, DEFENDANTS retaliated against RAMIREZ:( 1) for her" opposition", 8 9 " assistance" and/or" participation" in the FEHA claim of others; and( 2) for the making ofher own FEHA 10 claim.
11 130. As detailed above, DEFENDANTS engaged in an action or a course and pattern or conduct 12 13
that, taken as a whole, materially and adversely affected the terms, conditions and/ or privileges of 14 RAMIREZ' s employment.
15 131. As also.detailed above, RAMIREZwas treated differentlybyDEFENDANTS because ofher 16 protected status [ i.e., sex/gender, disability( physical or mental), association with a member of a protected 17 class, family care or medical leave and for engaging in protected activities ( participating as a witness in a 18 19 discrimination/ harassment complaint, reporting/ resisting discrimination/ retaliation, requesting/ using a 20 disability related accommodation, requesting/ using family care and medical leave]. 21 132. Asa direct and legal result of the retaliation against RAMIREZ due to her protected status, 22 RAMIREZ suffered harm and injury that was legally ( proximately), caused by the conduct of 23 24 DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury includes, but is not limited to, special( economic) damages, general 25 ( non economic) damages, attorneys' fees[ per Government Come§ 12965( b) b litigation costs, future damages 26 and past damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors and such further relief 27 2$
as shown at the time of Trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 111
is
RAM PEZ v. CITY or SMTA ANA CmE No.
CoMP[, wr
1 133. In addition to the damages sought above, as a proximate result of DEFENDANTS' actions 2 as alleged above, RAMIREZ will also seek all damages allowed by the Code. Government Code,§ 12965( c). 3 4
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
5 DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FAIR.EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 6 PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS)
7 134. RAMIREZ realleges Paragraphs I through 133 above and incorporates same as though fully 8 9
set forth herein.
10 135. Section 1, 2940, et. seq. ofthe California Government Code makes it unlawful for an employer 11 to discriminate against an employee in "terms, conditions or privileges of employment" because of the 12 protected status. DEFENDANTS engaged in an action or a course and pattern or conduct that, taken as a 13 14
whole, materially and adversely affected the terms, conditions and/ or privileges of RAMIREZ' s 15 employment.
16 136. RAMIREZ was treated differently by DEFENDANTS because ofher protected status [ i.e., 17 18
sex/ gender, disability( physical or mental), association with a member of a protected class, family care or 19 medical leave and for engaging in protected activities (participating as a witness in a 20 discriminationiharassment complaint, reporting/resisting discrimination/retaliation, requesting/ using a 21 disability related accommodation, requesting/ using family care and medical leave]. 22 23
137. As a direct and legal result of the discrimination RAMIREZ suffered due to her protected 24 status, RAMIREZ suffered harm and injury that was legally. (proximately) caused by the conduct of 25 DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury includes, but is not limited to, special( economic) damages, general 26 (
non- economic) damages, attorneys' fees[ per Government Code§ 12965( b)], litigation costs, future damages 27 and past damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors and such further relief 28 as shown at the time of Trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court.
RAMIREZ V. Cay or SANTA.ANA CASE No.
COMPLAINT
1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 3 4
PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS)
5 138. RAMIREZ realleges Paragraphs 1 through 137 above and incorporates same as though fully 6 set forth herein.
7 139. The harassment included but was not limitedto unwanted and unwelcome comments directly 8 9
to RAMIREZ that were reported to and by RAMIREZ, as further alleged herein above. As finrther alleged iF 10 herein above, DEFENDANTS entirely failed to respond as mandated by law. 11 140. The harassing conduct from DEFENDANTS was so severe, widespread or persistent that a 12 reasonable person.in RAMIREZ' s circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile 13 14 and abusive. RAMIREZ considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. 15 141. DEFENDANTS whether or not named or designated as a Doe' was/ were a supervisor with 16 actual or reasonably perceived authority over RAMIREZ and engaged in the harassing conduct against 17 RAMIREZ.
18 19
142. RAMIREZ was harmed and DEFENDANTS' conduct was a substantial factor in causing 20 RAMIREZ' s harm.
21 143. As a direct anal legal result ofthe harassment RAMIREZ suffered due to her protected status 22 i.e., sex/gender, disability(physical or mental), association with a member ofa protected class, family care 23 24
or medical leave- and for engaging in protected activities ( participating as a witness in a 25 discrimination/ harassment complaint, reporting/ resisting discrimination/ retaliation, requesting/ using a 26 disability related accommodation, requesting/ using family care and medical leave], RAMIREZ suffered 27 28
harm and injury that was legally( proximately) caused by the conduct of DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury includes, but is not limited to, special ( economic) damages, general ( non- economic) damages, 20 RAm RR7v. C[TYoFSANrAANA CAS19NO.
COMPI AIPIT
1 attorneys' fees [ per Government Code§ 12965( b)], litigation costs, future damages and past damages, lost 2 economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors and such further relief as shown at the time of 3 4
Trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION
7 IN VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
8 9
PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS)
10 144. ILWIREZ realleges Paragraphs 1 through 143 above and incorporates same as though fully 11 set forth herein.
12 145. DEFENDANTS are suffering/ have suffered with a number of lawsuits and complaints 13 14 ( including but not limited to the complaints from MMIREZ) alleging discrimination, retaliation and 15 harassment and putting DEFENDANTS on notice. and providing knowledge of the need to eliminate 16 discrimination, retaliation and harassment.
17 146. Under the law, as well as their own policies, DEFENDANTS had an obligation to take 18 19 corrective action to prevent further discrimination; retaliation and harassment of RANIIREZ but failed to 20 do so in violation of Section 12940, et: seq. ofthe California Government Code. DEFENDANTS failed to 21 conduct proper investigations, failed to turn over the results ofthese.investigations, failed to implement 22 proper policies to prevent discrimination,. retaliation and harassment and failed to properly punish those in 23 24 engaged in misconduct to deter further such future actions. 25 147. As a direct and legal result of the treatment RAMWZ suffered due to her protected status, 26 RAMIREZ suffered harm and injury that was legally (proximately) caused by the conduct of 27 28
DEFENDANTS. Said harm and injury includes, but is not limited to, special( economic) damages, general non- economic) damages, attorneys' fees[ per Government Code§ 12965( b)], litigation costs, future damages 21 RAMIRFZV. MYOFSAN7AANA CAsTi No.
COMPLAINT
1 and past damages, lost economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors and such further relief 2 as shown at the time of Trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional of this Court. 3 4
5 WHEREFORE, RAMIREZ prays for Judgment against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as 6 follows:
7 1. For compensatory damages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation, bonuses, 8 9 vacation and other employment perquisites and other special and general damages according to proof; 10 2. Damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress; 11 3. Interest, including pre-judgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate; 12 4. Attorneys' fees and costs incurred herein; and
13 14
5. Costs of suit; and
M 6. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 16 17
REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY 3-URY
18 19 RAMIREZ hereby demands a Trial by Jury.
20 21
DATED: October 21, 2022 , LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN 22 23
24 By: Lawrence J. Lennemann
LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN
25 Attorneys for Plaintiff RITA RAMIREZ
26 27
28 za
Rmruu7v. CITYoFSAwAAm CmENo.
COMPLAIt+PC
Becerra, Alexis
From: Jackie Angel Investor <
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 11: 37 AM
To: eComment
Cc: Vazquez, Benjamin; Ryberg, Erinn
Subject: Share Our Selves Corporation v. City of Santa Ana, United States District Court Case No. 8: 23- cv- 00504- DOC- KES
Attachments: Share Our Selves Corporation v. City of Santa Ana. pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Nonprofit Discrimination lawsuit attached FYI
City of Santa Ana blocks nonprofits from administering services to residents Planning Division back room deals, closed sessions
City Attorney, Mayor, City Councilmembers named
Urgency Zoning Ordinance Amendment" " special city council meetings" SOS was again hoodwinked by the city
Moreover, given the fact that SOS had been operating its El Sol Wellness Center on Broadway in Santa Ana for some 14 years as of the time the ordinances were adopted, it was common knowledge that SOS' s patient base in Santa Ana consisted mainly of poor Latino persons, whose national origin was the US, Mexico or countries outside the US. and those individuals, as well as homeless persons, were precisely the ' kind of people' that the city' s councilmembers and staff feared would be attracted to SOS' s proposed new facility near the Main Place Mall"
Motivated by this highly- discriminatory view, the City imposed a CUP requirement on nonprofit entities to ensure that the Planning Commission and city council would have sufficient 'discretion' to prevent medical offices operated by such entities from conducting operations within the P district." 1 Case 8: 23- cv-00504- DC-DFM Document 8 Filed 03/ 21/ 23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #: 176 AO 440( Rev. 06/ 12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Central District of California
SANTA
SHARE OUR SELVES CORPORATION, a California )
non- profit corporation
Plaintiff( s)
V. CiviiActionNo. 8: 23- cv- 00504- DOC- DFM
CITY OF SANTA ANA, a municipal corporation, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive
Defendant( s)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: ( Defendant' s name and address) CITY OF SANTA ANA
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you( not counting the day you received it)— or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee ofthe United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12( a)( 2) or( 3)— you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, whose name and address are: Connor Fletcher and Hedenkamp LLP Edmond M. Connor
2211 Michelson Drive, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92612
econnor@businesslit. com; service@businesslit. com
949- 622- 2600
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
Sinrows,? n
CLERK OF COURT
z ,-
Date: 3/ 21/ 2023 14."4
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504- DOC- DFM Document 8 Filed 03/ 21/ 23 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #: 177 AO 440( Rev. O6/ 12) Summons in a Civil Aotion( Page 2) Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
This section should not beftled with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. A 4 ( l)) This summons for( name of individual and title, if any) was received by me on( date)
I1 I personally served the summons on the individual at( place) On( date) or
173 I left the summons at the individual' s residence or usual place of abode with( name) a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, on( date) and mailed a copy to the individual' s last known address; or 171 I served the summons on( name of individual) who is designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of(name oforganization) on( date) or
I I returned the summons unexecuted because or
0 Other( sped):
My fees are$ for travel and$ for services, for a total of$ 0. 00 I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server' s signature
Printed name and title
Server' s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
i
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 1 of 45 Page ID #: 1 1 EDMOND M. CONNOR( SBN 65515)
econnor@businesslit. com
2 service@businesslit. com
DOUGLAS A. HEDENKAMP ( SBN 216487)
3 dhedenkamp@businesslit. com
CONNOR FLETCHER & HEDENKAMP LLP
4 2211 Michelson Drive, Suite 11.00
Irvine, California 92612
5 Telephone:( 949) 622- 2600
6 Attorneys for Share Our Selves Corporation
7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 SOUTHERN DIVISION
11 SHARE OUR SELVES Case No. 8: 23- cv-00504
CORPORATION, a California non12 profit corporation,
COMPLAINT OF SHARE OUR SELVES
13 Plaintiff and Petitioner, DECPORATION FOR DAMAGES,
LARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
V. RELIEF, FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
14 VIOLATIONS, AND PETITION FOR
CITY OF SANTA ANA a municipal WRIT OF MANDATE
15 corporation, and DOES T through 10,
inclusive,
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16 Defendants and Respondents. Before:
17 Complaint Filed:
Trial Date: Not Set
1$
19 20
21 22
23 24
Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 2 of 45 Page ID #: 2 1 For a Complaint against Defendants and Respondents City of Santa Ana (the 2 " City"), and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive ( collectively, " Defendants"), Plaintiff and 3 Petitioner Share Our Selves Corporation (" SOS" or " Plaintiff') alleges as follows:
Ie SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
4 S
1. As part of an orchestrated campaign to use the City' s land use regulations 6 to thwart and obstruct the operations of charitable organizations, like Micah' s Way and 7 the Salvation Army, who try to provide much- needed services to poor and homeless persons residing in Santa Ana, the City has recently adopted two zoning ordinances that 9 unabashedly— and unlawfully— discriminate against non-profit medical and dental 10 offices and the patients that they serve.
11 2. SOS, whose mission, as a Federally Qualified Health Center (" FQHC"), is 12 to provide medical and dental care to the underserved residents of Santa Ana, including 13 poor and homeless persons, has been sorely victimized by the City' s illegal 14 discrimination in adopting these ordinances. Indeed, the City' s unlawful actions have 15 prevented SOS from closing escrow on a three- story, 44, 000 SF commercial office 16 building, located at 2670 North Main Street in Santa Ana (the " Main Street Property" or 17 the " Property"), a block south of the Main Place Mall. That building was the only one 1$
in Santa Ana that met SOS' s needs to establish an expanded outpatient clinic. 19 3. As alleged in greater detail below, the City' s discriminatory conduct has 20 caused SOS to lose the opportunity to use the Main Street Property to ( a) meet the 21 growing demand for health services in the Santa Ana community; ( b) expand SOS' s 22 ability to serve more individuals in the community that are not currently able to obtain affordable care, while also expanding the services available at the new location to 23 24
include dental, pharmacy and vision services, given that SOS' s current location in Santa 2 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Piled 03/ 20/ 23 Page 3 of 45 Page ID #: 3 1 Ana provides no opportunity to expand space for medical services or add other service 2 lines; and ( c) provide a significant increase in the number of medical, dental and 3 pharmacy internships and residencies for new health professional coming into the field 4 from UC Irvine, Chapman, UC Southern California, etc., including physicians, nurse 5 practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, medical assistants, dentists, dental assistants, 6 and clinical pharmacists.
7 4. In 2022, SOS and its development partner, Turner Healthcare Facilities 8 Acquisition LLC (" Turner") [ hereinafter, SOS and Turner are sometimes collectively 9 referred to as " SOS"], incurred at least $ 500, 000 in purchase- related fees and 10 development costs, in formulating plans to remodel the Main Street Property to serve as 11 an expanded outpatient clinic to replace SOS' s El Sol Wellness Center, located at 1014 12 North Broadway in Santa Ana, which SOS has outgrown after faithfully providing 13 medical and dental care to Santa Ana residents for the past 14 years at that location. 14 5. Now, all of those purchase and planning expenses have gone to waste as a 15 result of a carefully-crafted scheme by the City to ,scuttle SOS' s plans to purchase and 16 remodel the Main Street Property, all because City leaders feared that SOS' s new 17 outpatient clinic at the Main Street Property would attract too many " undesirables" to 18 that area of the City—i.e., financially poor individuals of Latino descent, as well as 19 homeless persons.
20 6. In fact, when representatives of SOS first starting previewing SOS' s 21 remodeling plans for the Main Street Property in mid-2022, one of the first changes 22 requested by the City was that SOS agree not to operate a food pantry at the new 23 location because it might support the homeless. That was the first indication that the 24 City was concerned about the " type" of people that SOS' s new outpatient clinic would 3 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document I Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 4 of 45 Page ID #: 4 1 attract.
2 7. Moreover, it was hardly a coincidence that the City' s request that SOS not 3 operate a food pantry at the Main Street Property occurred at the same time in mid- 2022 4 that the City was threatening fines and criminal prosecution against Micah' s Way unless 5 it stopped distributing food and beverages to poor and homeless persons at the Resource 6 Center operated by Micah' s Way on 41h Street in Santa Ana. 7 8. SOS agreed to the City' s request not to operate a food pantry at the Main 8 Street Property and continued to work with City staff over a period of months to satisfy 9 staff s concerns about parking and other issues relating to the plans for SOS' s proposed 10 remodeling project (the " Project"). On November 17, 2022, SOS sent an e- mail to the 11 City' s Planning Division stating SOS' s understanding that the proposed " medical office" 12 use of the Main Street Property was " a by-right use" and that, since certain design 13 changes to eliminate square footage were going to be incorporated into the plans for the 14 Project " so that the proposed use can be 100% parked on site," there would be no need 15 for any discretionary entitlements for the Project, such as a minor exception for the 16 required number ofparking spaces.
17 9. Notably, in that same e- mail ofNovember 17, 2022, SOS expressly IS informed the City that (a) SOS' s due diligence period to purchase the Main Street 19 Property was going to expire in February 2023 and ( b) the reason SOS had decided to 20 eliminate square footage for the Project was to eliminate the need to obtain any 21 discretionary permits and thereby allow SOS to obtain " planning signoff' on its plans 22 " prior to the expiration of[ the] property due diligence period in February." 23 10. On November 28, 2022, the City' s Planning Division replied to SOS' s e24 mail and expressly confirmed that the " review process" for SOS' s Project would be 4 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 5 of 45 Page 1D #: 5 1 " administrative." In other words, the Project would not require any discretionary 2 permits and would simply " be subject to administrative review by the Planning 3 Division." Importantly, in its e- mail, the Planning Division did not dispute the fact that,
4. if SOS acquired the Main Street Property, it would have a" right" to operate a medical 5 office at that location without the need for any discretionary permits, such as a 6 conditional use permit (" CUP"), for example.
7 11. Unbeknownst to SOS, which had been assured in writing by the City' s 8 Planning Division that the plans for the Project would only require a ministerial 9 approval following an administrative review by City staff,there were other persons at 10 the City, including various councilmembers, the City Manager and members of her staff, 11 as well as the City Attorney and members of her office, who— armed with the 12 knowledge that SOS' s extension of time to close escrow on the its purchase ofthe Main 13 Street Property was going to expire in February 2023-- started working behind the 14 scenes to kill the Project by making it impossible for SOS to purchase the Main Street 15 Property before SOS' s time to do so expired.
16 12. As explained below in greater detail, at the December 12, 2022 meeting of 17 the City' s Planning Commission, which was held a mere two weeks after the Planning 18 Division had sent its e- mail to SOS, assuring SOS that the Project would only be subject 19 to an administrative review by City staff, an omnibus amendment to various provisions 20 of the City' s Zoning Code— an earlier earlier version of which had been initially been 21 considered by the Planning Commission in September 2022 without taking any action 22 on it----was presented. to the Commission for a second review. 23 13. However, this time, the amendment suddenly contained provisions that 24 would not allow " medical offices operated by government, government subsidized, not5 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 6 of 45 Page ID#: 6 1 for- profit, or philanthropic entities" to operate anywhere within the City' s Professional 2 zoning district (the " P District") unless and until such " entities" obtained a discretionary 3 permit— i. e., a CUP.
4 14. The Planning Commission quickly recommended approval of this new CUP 5 requirement and sent the matter on the City Council to take action on its 6 recommendation. No one at the City took any steps to directly inform SOS, either 7 before or after the Planning Commission meeting, that the City was going to amend its 8 Zoning Code to require SOS to obtain a CUP before its Project could get underway. In 9 fact, the public notice for the omnibus zoning amendment that was to be considered at 10 the Planning Commission' s December 12, 2022 meeting contained no reference to the 11 new provisions relating to medical offices in the P District that were actually considered 12 and approved at that meeting.
13 15. On December 20, 2022, obviously concerned that it needed to act swiftly to 14 bring a halt to SOS' s Project before it could be approved by staff, the City Council---- 15 without providing any notice to the public at large or any direct notice to SOS, itself16 adopted an ur_ gency ordinance, i. e., Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2022- 07 ( the 17 " Urgency Ordinance")
18 16. The Urgency Ordinance immediately imposed a new CUP requirement that 19 would apply to any medical offices operated in the P District by any " government, 20 government-subsidized, not-for- profit, or philanthropic entities" ( hereinafter, 21 collectively referred to as " Non-Profit Entities"). 22 17. Two days later, on December 22, 2022, SOS, completely unaware that the 23 Urgency Ordinance had been adopted by the City Council, submitted its major remodel 24 application for the Project, expecting that it would be subject to staff review only and 6 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 7 of 45 Page ID #: 7 1 would be approved well in advance of the February deadline for closing escrow on the 2 Main Street Property.
3 18. A week later, during the Christmas holidays, SOS received an e- mail from 4 the City' s Planning Division informing it that the Urgency Ordinance had gone into 5 effect and, as a result, SOS would now be required to obtain a CUP for the Project. The 6 e- mail went on to suggest that, in light of this new requirement, SOS might want to hold 7 off in " submitting any review fees or making further progress on the plans for 2670 N. 8 Main Street" and " reevaluate the project."
9 19. Needless to say, SOS was absolutely shocked that all this had gone on 10 behind its back without any heads up from anyone at the City. Although hampered by 11 the fact that people were out for the holidays, SOS began organizing efforts to meet with 12 City officials to try to salvage the Project and find out what could be done about the new 13 CUP requirement in the Urgency Ordinance. Regrettably, however, SOS was again 14 hoodwinked by the City.
15 20. At its regular meeting on January 17, 2023, after providing legally16 defective and inadequate public notice and holding a public hearing that lasted just a few 17 seconds without any members of the public even being present to speak on the item18 and, again, without providing SOS with any direct advance notice— the City Council 19 conducted the first reading of a non- urgency ordinance, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 20 No. 2022- 03 ( the " Permanent Ordinance"), which, as a" backup" measure, was basically 21 was the mirror image ofthe Urgency Ordinance. The Council quickly voted to 22 preliminarily approve the Permanent Ordinance at that meeting. 23 21. Before the second reading of the Permanent Ordinance occurred at the 24 Council' s February 7, 2023 meeting, representatives of SOS met directly with the 7 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 8 of 45 Page ID #: 8 1 Mayor, various councilmembers, and staff persons to plead SOS' s case in requesting 2 that the new CUP requirement either be eliminated or be deemed inapplicable to the 3 Project.
4 22. SOS' s representatives also appeared at the Council' s February 7t' meeting 5 for the second reading of the Permanent, submitted a letter of objections to the City 6 Clerk, and, during the public comment segment of the meeting, implored the Mayor and 7 the Council to reopen the public hearing on the Permanent Ordinance and allow them to 8 explain why that Ordinance was ill-advised and unlawful, and should not be approved. 9 23. One of the arguments advanced by the representatives of SOS, both before 10 and at the February 7t' Council meeting, was that the seller of the Main Street Property 11 was not willing to further extend the escrow on SOS' s purchase ofthe Property and, as 12 such, ifthe Project were not exempted from the new CUP requirement, SOS would lose 13 the Property, the Project would be stopped dead in its tracks, and Santa Ana would lose 14 the valuable benefits associated with a
remodeling project that would bring $ 34 million
15 in construction jobs and resources into the City and would generate at least 120 16 permanent jobs at the new clinic to provide medical and dental care to the City' s 17 residents.
18 24. Ironically, however, SOS' s pleas about how it was going to lose the right to 19 purchase the Main Street Property ifthe CUP requirement remained in place turned out 20 to be music to the ears of those councilmembers, city staff persons, and members of the 21 City Attorney' s office who had planned all along to stymie the Project by imposing the 22 CUP requirement on SOS, knowing full well that it would make it impossible for SOS to 23 close escrow on the Main Street Property before the due diligence period expired in 24 February 2023.
8 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23••cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 9 of 45 Page ID #: 9 1 25. In fact, at the Council meeting on February 7, 2023, after hearing the 2 remarks made by SOS' s representatives, and after stating that it would be a tragic loss 3 for the City' s residents if SOS' s new outpatient clinic was not allowed to go forward, 4 one of the councilmembers sought to reopen the hearing on the Permanent Ordinance in 5 order to send the Ordinance back to staff for further review and analysis for a possible 6 amendment. However, at that point, the City Attorney interjected and materially misled 7 the Council by incorrectly stating that, since the Urgency Ordinance was allegedly still 8 in effect and would supposedly never expire, then it would be a complete waste oftime 9 to make any changes to the CUP requirement in the Permanent Ordinance. 10 26. The undeniable truth, however, was that, under the explicit provisions of 11 Government Code section 65858, the Urgency Ordinance had actually expired on 12 February 3, 2023, by operation of California law. Nevertheless, following the remarks 13 by the City Attorney, the Mayor and all but one of the councilmembers swiftly voted to 14 approve the Permanent Ordinance.
15 27. For purposes of clarification, none of the claims set forth below are based 16 upon, or seek any compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, or other relief arising out of or 17 relating to, any statements made by the City Attorney at the February 7' Council 18 meeting. Rather, such remarks have been reported only to the extent that they bear on 19 the City' s unfair rejection of SOS' s requests to reopen the public hearing on the 20 Permanent Ordinance to allow SOS' s representatives a meaningful opportunity to 21 present their arguments in opposition to that Ordinance, both orally and in writing. 22 28. The reasons why SOS is challenging both the Urgency Ordinance ( to the 23 extent that the City claims it is still in effect) and the Permanent Ordinance ( collectively, 24 the " Ordinances") can be summarized as follows: ( a) there is no rational basis for either 9 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 1.0 of 45 Page ID #: 10 1 of the Ordinances; ( b) both Ordinances unlawfully infringe on the fundamental 2 constitutional rights of association and of privacy and result in a denial of substantive 3 due process and equal protection; and ( c) invidious discrimination was a motivating 4 factor in the adoption of both Ordinances, resulting in a denial equal protection under 5 the law.
6 29. On their face, both Ordinances unlawfully discriminate a aft Non- Profit 7 Entities, and in favor of entities that seek to make a profit in providing mental or dental 8 care ( collectively, " For-Profit Entities") in connection with operating medical or dental 9 offices ( collectively, " Medical Offices") in the City' s P District. 10 30. In this regard, the Ordinances allow For-Profit Entities to operate Medical 11 Offices in the P District" by right." In other words, in order to operate such Medical 12 Offices, For-Profit Entities do not have to submit any permit applications, obtain any 13 discretionary permits, or face any opposition from members ofthe public at any hearings 14 held by the City' s Planning Commission or City Council. 15 31. By sharp contrast, however, the Ordinances treat Non-Profit Entities that 16 operate Medical Offices in the P District quite differently— not because the doctors, 17 dentists, or nurses who are employed by such Entities practice medicine or dentistry any 18 differently than their counterparts employed at Medical Offices operated by For-Profit 19 Entities, but, rather, because of the characteristics of the people whom the City believes 20 will be attracted to Medical Offices operated by Non-Profit Entities. 21 32. For example, people who are homeless, people who are of Hispanic or 22 Latino ( collectively, "Latino") ethnicity, people who are living at or below the Federal 23 Poverty Level, or people who cannot afford or obtain medical insurance. 24 33. In 2022, 87% of the patients served at SOS' s El Sol Wellness Center in 10 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 11 of 45 Page ! D #: 11 1 Santa Ana were ofLatino descent, and of those Latino patients, 80% qualified for Medi2 Cal with incomes either below, or no higher than 138% of the Federal Poverty Level. In 3 addition, approximately two to five percent of the patients served at SOS' s Santa Ana 4 facility were homeless persons.
5 34. On a county- wide basis, including all four of the community health centers 6 run by SOS in Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Mission Viejo, and Newport Beach, the 7 demographics are similar. Sixty- five percent of SOS' s patients county- wide identify as 8 Latino, 55% of its patients are best served in a language other than English, 65% are 9 covered by Medicaid, approximately 10% are homeless, and 72% have family incomes 10 at or below the Federal Poverty Level.
11 35. SOS' s clients include patients covered by Medicare, Medi- Cal, and private 12 insurance, as well as uninsured patients who may be low income or homeless, and who 13 often have no way of paying for healthcare services. 14 36. As an FQHC, SOS is mandated by the federal government to operate 15 community based health centers that provide high quality comprehensive medical, 16 dental, and behavioral health services, regardless of a patient' s ability to pay. 17 37. Both in the meetings that took place before the second reading of the 18 Permanent Ordinance at the February 7, 2023 Council meeting, and by a letter submitted 19 at that meeting by SOS' s representatives, City staff persons, the Mayor, and various 20 councilmembers were expressly apprised of these facts and demographics, including the 21 fact that, in Santa Ana, SOS' s patients were predominantly poor persons of Latino 22 ethnicity.
23 38. Moreover, given the fact that SOS had been operating its El Sol Wellness 24 Center on Broadway in Santa Ana for some 14 years as of the time the Ordinances were 11 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document I Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 12 of 45 Page ID #: 12 1 adopted, it was common knowledge that SOS' s patient base in Santa Ana consisted 2 mainly of poor Latino persons, whose national origin was the U.S., Mexico, or countries 3 outside the U. S. ( e. g., immigrants). And those individuals, as well as homeless persons, 4 were precisely the " kind of people" that the City' s councilmembers and staff feared 5 would be attracted to SOS' s proposed new facility near the Main Place Mall if SOS' s 6 major remodel application were approved by staff and SOS was able to timely close 7 escrow on the Main Street Property.
8 39. One of the findings set forth in the Urgency Ordinance reveals the City' s 9 true discriminatory intent in requiring Non-Profit Entities to obtain a CUP in order to 10 operate Medical Offices in the City' s P District— while exempting Far-Profit Entities 11 from that same requirement:
12 WBEREAS, the absence of a conditional use permit requirement for 13 medical offices operated by government, government- subsidized, not-for14 profit, or philanthropic entities is inconsistent with the goals expressed by 15 SAMC Section 4 1- 1 ( Purpose) in that discretion by the Planning 16 Commission and Citv Council cannot be exercised to ensure that the 17 location and operation of such facilities are compatible with the scale 18 character, and nature of surrounding properties and neighborhoods as 19 specified in SAMC sections 41- 1. ( a), ( b), ( e), and ( f). 20 40. The " code words" embedded in the above- quoted finding unmask the 21 City' s biased belief that, while Medical Offices operated by For-Profit Entities would 22 always be " compatible" with the " character" of" surrounding properties and 23 neighborhoods" in the P District, the same would not be true, as the City sees it, for 24 Medical Offices operated by Non-Profit Entities. Motivated by this highly12 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 13 of 45 Page ID #: 13 1 discriminatory view, the City imposed a CUP requirement on Non-Profit Entities to 2 ensure that the Planning Commission and City Council would have sufficient 3 " discretion" to prevent Medical Offices operated by such Entities from conducting 4 operations within the P District.
5 41. The question that naturally arises, therefore, is what makes the City believe 6 that Medical Offices operated by Non-Profit Entities might be " incompatible" with 7 " surrounding properties and neighborhoods" in the P District, whereas Medical Offices 8 operated by For-Profit Entities could always be counted on to be " compatible" with such 9 properties and neighborhoods?
10 42. Asked another way, when City officials realized that SOS was poised to 11 relocate its operations to the Main Street Property, why did the City suddenly spring into 12 action, hurriedly adopt the Urgency Ordinance, and amend its Zoning Code to provide 13 that Medical Offices operated by Non- Profit Entities are not allowed to operate in the P 14 District unless and until such Entities ( a) undergo a costly and time- consuming 15 application, review, and public hearing process to seek a conditional use permit 16 (" CUP"), ( b) run the gauntlet of public opposition to the requested CUP, and ( c) actually 17 succeed in obtaining a CUP, which will be of limited duration, will be subject to any 18 number of onerous conditions and restrictions, and will always be at risk of being 19 revoked at the City' s discretion?
20 43. There is only one answer to these troubling questions: the distinction that 21 the City has drawn in the Ordinances between Medical Offices operated by Non-Profit 22 Entities and those operated by For-Profit Entities is based solely on the City' s belief that 23 1 the former are likely to attract poor Latino persons from Mexico and other countries 24 outside the United States ( immigrants), as well as homeless persons of various races and 13 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 14 of 45 Page ID#: 14 1 ethnicities, whereas the latter are not likely to be visited by such persons. 2 44. Because this invidious belief on the part of the City was unquestionably a 3 motivating factor in adopting the Ordinances and treating Non-Profit Entities, and their 4 patients, in an arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasonable manner by (a) depriving them 5 of the unfettered " right" and benefits enjoyed by For- Profit Entities to freely operate 6 Medical Offices in the P District and (b) subjecting them to a burdensome and 7 discretionary CUP process with no guaranteed outcome, the Ordinances are unlawful 8 and invalid, both facially and as applied, under, inter alia, the U.S. and California 9 Constitutions.
10 45. Indeed, there is no compelling governmental interest, much less any 11 rational basis, for subjecting Non-Profit Entities, and their patients, to such blatant 12 discrimination, particularly when such discriminatory treatment is intentionally aimed 13 at, and will have a disparate impact on, protected classes of individuals, i. e., poor 14 persons of Latino descent whose national origin is the U.S., Mexico, or other countries 15 outside the U.S. ( immigrants) and homeless persons who also belong to various minority 16 groups ( Latino, Black or African- American, Asian, etc.). 17 46. Notably, the administrative record for the Ordinances is devoid of any 18 evidence, much less substantial evidence, to support the City' s decision to draw such 19 arbitrary and irrational distinctions between Non-Profit and For-Profit Entities operating 20 Medical Offices in the P District. That, alone, renders the Ordinances invalid on their 21 face.
22 47. Moreover, the Ordinances are also invalid on their face to the extent that 23 they attempt to impose any restrictions, such as a CUP requirement, on any Medical 24 Offices operated by any federal, state, or county governmental agencies. Under the 14 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 15 of 45 Page ID # 15 1 long- standing doctrine of sovereign immunity, federal, state, and county agencies are not 2 subject to any such land use or zoning regulations.
3 48. In addition, the Ordinances violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. 4 Constitution, and California law, and are void to the extent that they stand as an obstacle 5 to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. 6 As noted above, SOS is a Federally Qualified Health Center (" FQHC") that is funded by 7 the United States government with the express mandate to provide health care services 8 to medically underserved populations. The Ordinances materially interfere with and 9 obstruct SOS' s ability to fulfill its federal mandate and thus are preempted by federal 10 and state law.
11 49. Some four decades ago, the California Supreme Court prophetically noted 12 that " In general, zoning ordinances are much less suspect when they focus on the use 13 than when they command inquiry into who are the users." ( Emphasis added.) The 14 Ordinances clearly run afoul of this time- honored admonition by unlawfully 15 discriminating against the users of Medical Offices-- i.e., Non-Profit Entities and their 16 patients— rather than focusing on the use, itself, i.e., the provision of medical and dental 17 care to human beings, no matter what their race, color, or national origin is, or whether 18 they are housed or unhoused.
19 50. As such, at a minimum, those portions of the Ordinances that impose a 20 CUP requirement on Medical Offices that are operated by Non-Profit Entities in the P 21 District, including sections 4 and 8 ofthe Urgency Ordinance ( to the extent that 22 Ordinance has not already expired by operation of state law) and sections 9 and 16 ofthe 23 Permanent Ordinance, must be declared unlawful and be stricken as void and invalid. 24 15
Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 16 of 45 Page 1D#: 16 1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2 51. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S. C. §§ 1331, 3 and 1343( a)( 3), based on questions of federal statutory and constitutional law, and under 4 the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S. C. §§ 2201( a) and 2202. The Court has 5 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 U. S. C. § 1367. 6 52. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 7 1391( b) because all of the Defendants reside and can be found in this District and all of 8 the acts and events giving rise to the claims occurred here. Venue is proper specifically 9 in the Southern Division of this District because all of the Defendants reside within the 10 Southern Division and all of the claims arose in the Southern Division. l 1 III. THE PARTIES
12 53. The City is now, and at all relevant times has been, ( a) a municipality 13 organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and ( b) a political 14 subdivision of the State of California, located within the County of Orange. The City 15 receives funds from the federal government relating to various federal programs. 16 54. SOS is a community- based 501( c)( 3) California non-profit corporation and 17 community health center with its principal place of business in Orange County, 18 California. SOS was founded in 1970 for the express purpose of implementing the 19 Directives of the Catholic Bishops of the United States in offering a broad spectrum of 20 services and resources to help those in need. For the past 39 years, has delivered high21 quality, accessible, and affordable health care services to individuals and families 22 throughout Orange County.
23 55. SOS has been designated as a Federally Qualified Health Center (" FQHC") 24 since 2012, and has also secured designation as a Health Care for the Homeless 16 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23--cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 17 of 45 Page lD #: 17 1 (" HCH") program under section 330( h) of the Public Health Service Act. SOS currently 2 provides health services to children, adults, and seniors as well as comprehensive care at 3 its four medical facilities in Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Mission Viejo, and Newport Beach. 4 56. The full names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or 5 otherwise, of the defendants herein named as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are 6 presently unknown to SOS, who, therefore, sues such defendants by such fictitious 7 names. SOS will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when 8 the same have been ascertained. SOS alleges on information and belief that all ofthe 9 defendants fictitiously named as DOES 1 through 10 are jointly and severally liable and 10 at fault in some manner for the acts and omissions herein alleged and complained of, and 11 caused the injury and damage to MW as alleged herein. 12 57. SOS alleges on information and belief that in performing the acts and 13 omissions alleged herein, each of the Defendants was the agent and employee of each of 14 the other Defendants and was at all times acting within the course and scope of such 15 agency and employment.
16 IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
17 A. SOS And Turner Exist To Provide Healthcare To Communities That 18 Lack Adequate Health Resources.
19 58. FQHCs, such as SOS, are regulated by the Health Resources and Services 20 Administration (" HRSA) of the United States Government. FQHCs receive an annual 21 grant from HRSA for each approved site at which services are provided. In addition, 22 FQHCs receive a higher reimbursement rate for seeing Medicaid ( MediCal) patients 23 than do hospitals, non- FQHCs, or practitioners.
24 59. In exchange for. the HRSA grant and higher reimbursement rate, FQHCs 17 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 18 of 45 Page ID # 18 1 must provide cradle to grave primary care services and must accept all patients 2 regardless of insurance status or ability to pay. FQHCs are also required to establish 3 " sliding scale" fees for uninsured patients based on an assessment of the patient' s 4 income relative to federally adjusted poverty line which takes into consideration the size 5 of the individual' s household among other factors. FQHCs are mandated to charge at 6 least a" nominal fee" regardless of how low an individual' s income may be. 7 B. SOS And Turner Agree To Develop Medical Offices At The Main 8 Street Property.
9 60. SOS currently operates medical offices in four locations across Orange 10 County, California. One ofthose offices, the SOS El Sol Wellness Center, is located at 11 1014 N. Broadway, in Santa Ana, California (the " North Broadway Office"). 12 61. SOS has outgrown the North Broadway Office, and needs more space to 13 expand its operations.
14 62. Accordingly, in the fall of 2021, SOS and Turner began looking for a larger 15 building that could house a new medical office to replace the North Broadway Office, 16 based on an understanding that Turner would purchase the building, and SOS would 17 lease the building from Turner with the option to purchase the Main Street Property at 18 year four ofthe lease.
19 63. Turner is an investment company that invests in under- resourced 20 communities, and builds healthcare facilities on its properties. Turner then leases those 21 facilities to healthcare providers to serve those under-resourced communities. 22 64. Eventually, SOS and Turner found the Main Street Property, located at 23 2670 N. Main Street. The Property consists of a 1. 44 acre parcel of land, with an 24 existing office building of approximately 44, 000 square feet. The Main Street Property 18 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document I Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 1.9 of 45 Page ID #: 1. 9 1 is in the area designated as the " P district" in the City' s Zoning Code. 2 65. On February 25, 2022, SOS and Turner executed a term sheet ( the " Term 3 Sheet"), setting forth the parties' intention to purchase and cause the Main Street 4 Property to be remodeled to serve as an expanded outpatient clinic for SOS ( previously 5 defined hereinabove as the " Project").
6 66. The Term Sheet specified that Turner was to negotiate and purchase the 7 Main Street Property, and then develop and construct the medical office space. Eighty 8 percent of the budget for the purchase, development, and construction was to be 9 supplied by Turner, and the remaining 20% was to be supplied by SOS, with Turner 10 holding title to the Property.
11 67. Under the Term Sheet, SOS would enter into a 20- year triple- net lease of 12 the Property, accepting responsibility for maintenance and repairs ( other than roof and 13 structural elements). The rent would be calculated based on the final budget, and SOS 14 would be provided with two five- year options to extend, and an option to purchase the 15 Property at year four of the lease. In the event SOS and Turner were not able to 16 consummate the intended transaction, they agreed that the SOS and Turner would each 17 be responsible for 50% of the costs incurred relating to the Project. 18 68. On March 7, 2022, Turner entered into a purchase and sale agreement (the 19 " PSA") to buy the Main Street Property (the " PSA") from the Himy Family Limited 20 Partnership II, LP (the " Seller"). The PSA provided Turner with a period of 90 days 21 ( the " Inspection Period") to conduct all due diligence of the property, including any 22 attempts to obtain entitlements, approvals, permits, and private party consents to develop 23 and construct the medical office facilities in the existing office building. The PSA 24 further provided that the Turner had the sole and absolute discretion to decide whether 19 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23--cv-00504 Document I Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 20 of 45 Page ID #: 20 1 or not to purchase the Main Street Property prior to the expiration of the Inspection 2 Period.
3 69. Under the PSA, Turner was required to, and did, place a refundable deposit 4 into escrow, and made a non-refundable payment in Independent Consideration to the 5 Seller.
6 70. On May 31, 2022, Turner and the Seller extended the Inspection Period 7 through August 5, 2022, pursuant to a First Amendment to the PSA, which required 8 Turner to pay a nonrefundable Extension Fee.
9 71. A second amendment to the PSA was entered into on July 27, 2022. This
1. 0 amendment allowed a series of extensions of the Inspection Period. The first extension 11 would be through September 6, 2022, and would require Turner to pay a second 12 Extension Fee. The second extension would be through October 6, 2022, and would 13 also require Turner to pay a third Extension Fee. The third extension would be through 14 November 7, 2022, and would require Turner to pay a fourth Extension Fee. Turner 15 paid all four ofthese Extension Fees, and obtained the extensions to November 7, 2022. 16 72. On November 7, 2022, Turner and the Seller entered into a third 17 amendment to the PSA, which required Turner to: ( 1) release a portion ofthe funds 18 deposited into escrow to the Seller, and ( 2) make additional nonrefundable payments of 19 three Extension Fees in exchange for three additional 30- day extensions of the 20 Inspection Period. Turner released the escrow funds, made the Extension Fee payments 21 and received the three extensions, after which the Inspection Period was set to expire on 22 February 6, 2023. Under the fourth and final amendment to the PSA, the parties 23 extended the Inspection period through February 10, 2023. 24 73. While these amendments were being negotiated and executed, Turner was 20 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 21 of 45 Page ID #: 21 1 also in contact the City to begin the process of obtaining the necessary approvals for the 2 Project.
3 C. Attempts By Turner And SOS To Develop The Main Street Property 4 Run Into Resistance From City Staff.
5 74. At the time the PSA was executed, Medical and dental offices were 6 permitted as a matter of right in the P District in which the Main Street Property is 7 located, and there were no restrictions regarding the entities that could operate such 8 offices. Accordingly, the primary entitlements necessary were a building permit and 9 approval of a major commercial remodel application (the " Major Remodel 10 Application"). Also, the original plans for the Main Street Property required a minor 11 exception to reduce the off-street parking requirements for the site, and to permit tandem 12 parking.
13 75. Turner submitted the materials supporting its application for the minor 14 exception to the City on August 30, 2023. Those materials included a project 15 description, which stated that " Share Our Selves Corporation, a non- profit, Federally 16 Qualified Health Center providing healthcare services to the general public regardless of 17 insurance status or ability to pay, would operate the first- and second- floor medical 18 offices."
19 76. The City denied the minor exception application on October 27, 2022. 20 77. While Turner and SOS initially planned on appealing the denial of the 21 minor exception, they eventually decided that simply altering the plans for the remodel 22 to decrease floor space and increase parking space in order to fully comply with the 23 City' s parking requirements might be a better course of action. 24 78. Accordingly, on November 17, 2022, Turner' s representative contacted 21 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 22 of 45 Page ID #: 22 1 City staff to inform them that Turner and SOS intended to modify their development 2 plans in order to fully comply with all parking requirements. Turner' s representative 3 explained that this was being done in order to complete the application process before 4 the PSA expired in February of 2023. She then asked City staff to confirm that, ifthe 5 remodel project complied with the parking requirements and other zoning and building 6 requirements, the approval of the project would consist of an administrative review by 7 City staff and the use would be: allowed as a matter ofright. 8 79. The City replied by e- mail on November 28, 2022, and confinned that the 9 Project " would be subject to administrative review by the Planning Division." A true 10 and correct copy ofthe email chain including Turner' s email ofNovember 17, 2022, and 11 the City' s email of November 28, 2022, is attached as Exhibit A hereto 12 80. On December 6, 2022, Turner informed City Staff that it was planning on 13 submitting a Major Remodel Application that complied with the parking requirements 14 by December 22, 2022.
15 81. On December 22, 2022, Turner submitted the plans for their Major 16 Remodel Application in full compliance with the parking requirement ( and all other 17 applicable requirements). Turner believed that the Application would quickly be 18 approved on a ministerial basis.
19 D. The City Adopts The Urgency Ordinance To Prevent Purchase And 20 Remodeling Of The Main Street Property By Turner And SOS. 21 82. Once it became known at the City that Turner had resolved the parking 22 issues by reducing the square footage of the Project so that a minor exception was no 23 longer needed and the plans for the Project could be quickly approved, various persons 24 at the City became alarmed that the Project might actually become a reality and, without 22 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 23 of 45 Page ID #: 23 1 telling Turner or SOS, began formulating plans to prevent the Project from going 2 forward. The plan they devised, and proceeded to conceal from Turner and SOS, 3 involved adding language to an omnibus amendment to the Zoning Code that had been 4 floating around for months at the City.
5 83. Indeed, months earlier, at a meeting ofthe City' s Planning Commission 6 held on September 26, 2022, consideration of proposed omnibus Zoning Ordinance 7 Amendment 2022- 03 ( the " Proposed Omnibus Amendment") was placed on the agenda. 8 This Proposed Omnibus Amendment to the Zoning Code was the precursor to what 9 would ultimately be adopted by the City Council as the Permanent Ordinance on 10 February 7, 2023.
11 84. However, as of the September 2022 timeframe, the Proposed Omnibus 12 Amendment did not include any provisions requiring CUPs for Medical Offices in the P 13 District that are operated by government, government- subsidized, not-for-profit, or 14 philanthropic entities (previously defined hereinabove as " Non-Profit Entities"). 15 85. Moreover, as of the December 2022 timeframe, there was nothing pressing 16 or urgent about adopting the Proposed Omnibus Amendment, given that it had been 17 taken off calendar at the September 26, 2022 meeting without discussion by the 18 Planning Commission, and had been allowed to languish for nearly three months until it 19 had been rescheduled for hearing on December 12, 2022. 20 86. The public notice for the Proposed Omnibus Amendment to be considered 21 at the December 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting was published on November 22 29, 2022, and no mention whatsoever about imposing any CUP requirements on Non23 Profit Entities that sought to operate any Medical Offices in the P District. 24 87. Ncvertheless, despite this blatant lack of public notice, and without any 23 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document I Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 24 of 45 Page 1D #: 24 1 notice having been given to Turner or SOS, the version of the Proposed Omnibus 2 Amendment to the Zoning Code that City staff presented to the Planning Commission. 3 for its consideration at the December 12, 2022 meeting did, in fact, include new 4 language purporting to amend section 41- 313. 5 of the Zoning Code to require Non5 Profit Entities to obtain a discretionary permit, i.e., a CUP ( hereinafter referred to as the 6 " CUP Requirement"), before being allowed to operate any Medical Offices in the P 7 District.
8 88. What is important to note is that this new language surfaced at the Planning 9 Commission meeting just two weeks after City staff had informed Turner in.writing that 10 the Project would only be subject to administrative review by the Planning Division, 11 There can be no doubt, therefore, that this new language was purposely aimed at SOS' s 12 Project and was designed to bring it to an immediate halt. 13 89. At the December 12, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to 14 recommend that the City Council approve the version of Zoning Ordinance 2022- 03 that 15 amended section 41- 313. 5 ofthe Zoning Code to impose the discriminatory CUP 16 Requirement for Medical Offices operated by Non-Profit Entities in the P District. 17 90. Shortly thereafter, on December 20, 2022, the City Council held a hearing 18 on the Urgency Ordinance, which was virtually identical to Zoning Ordinance 2022- 03 19 that had been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on December 12, 20 but the Council hurriedly enacted the Ordinance as an urgency measure, rather than as a 21 permanent ordinance.
22 91. Once again, despite the fact that the Urgency Ordinance was obviously 23 intended to apply to the Project, the City opted not to give Turner or SOS any heads up 24 or other form of notice of the hearing on the Urgency Ordinance. 1n fact, no advance 24 Complaint ofShare Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 25 of 45 Page ID #: 25 1 notice of the hearing on the Urgency Ordinance was given to the general public either. 2 92. At its December 20, 2022 meeting, the City Council unanimously passed 3 the Urgency Ordinance, which purported to add new subdivision (p) to section 41- 313. 5 4 of the City' s Municipal Code. That new subdivision provided that a CUP would be 5 required in the P District for any " Medical offices operated by government, government6 subsidized, not- for-profit, or philanthropic entities." Under section 41- 313 of the City' s 7 Municipal Code, any Medical Offices operated by For-Profit Entities ( as previously 8 defined above) are permitted in the P District as a matter of right, with no need to obtain 9 a CUP.
10 93. Attached as Exhibit B hereto is a true and correct copy of the Agenda 11 Packet for the Urgency Ordinance, which contains a true and correct copy of the 12 Urgency Ordinance.
13 94. In addition to enacting the CUP Requirement that only applies to Non14 Profit Entities, the City engaged in additional unlawful and discriminatory conduct by 15 including in the Urgency Ordinance ( and ultimately also in the Permanent Ordinance 16 also) provisions to prohibit Medical Offices from treating substance abuse or providing 17 any " homeless support services" in the P District, and to allow the installation of electric 18 fences to prevent homeless people from trespassing on properties adjacent to railroad 19 tracks.
20 95. At the City Council hearing on the Urgency Ordinance, the Council 21 discussed some matters relating to the use of electric fences to ward off" transient 22 populations"— i.e., homeless persons— but there was no discussion of the discriminatory 23 CUP Requirement at all.
24 96. Because the City had purposely left Turner and SOS in the dark about the 25 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Piled 03/ 20/ 23 Page 26 of 45 Page ID #: 26 1 Urgency Ordinance, Turner submitted its Major Commercial Remodel Application for 2 the Main Street Property on December 22, 2022, two days after the Urgency Ordinance 3 had already gone into effect.
4 97. Turner did not learn of the Urgency Ordinance until City staff sent an e5 mail to Turner on December 29, 2022, stating that a CUP would be required to allow " an 6 entity such as Share Our Selves" to conduct any operations in the P District. 7 98. On January 31, 2023, City staff informed Turner that proceeding with a 8 CUP application would also require payment of a Development Permit Fee in the 9 amount of$5, 216.38, an Environmental Determination Fee of$706, and an OCFA fee 10 of$ 404.
11 E. The Urgency Ordinance Expires, Turner resubmits Its remodel 12 Application, And The City Council .Approves The Permanent 13 Ordinance.
14 99. On January 17, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing on the first 15 reading ofthe Permanent Ordinance, which is the permanent version of Zoning 16 Ordinance 2022- 03. Like the Urgency Ordinance, this version also contained the 17 discriminatory CUP Requirement in section 41- 313. 5( p) of the City' s Municipal Code, 18 and the other anti- homeless provisions discussed above. 19 100. For the third time, despite the fact that the City intended the Permanent 20 Ordinance to ( a) directly apply to the Project, (b) prevent Turner from timely closing 21 escrow on the Main Street Property, and ( c) effectively prohibit SOS' s use ofthat 22 Property, the City failed to give Turner or SOS any notice ofthe hearing on the 23 Permanent Ordinance. Once again, the public notice did not state that the City was 24 considering imposing a CUP requirement for medical offices in the P District. 26 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 27 of 45 Page ID #: 27 1 101. More importantly, the public notice for the January 17, 2023 hearing on the 2 first reading of the Permanent Ordinance was legally defective and violated section 3 65094 of the Government Code by failing to state whether the Planning Commission 4 had recommended that the City Council adopt the Permanent Ordinance. 5 102. At the January 17, 2023 hearing, the City Council voted to approve the 6 Permanent Ordinance, and to advance it to a second reading, which was scheduled for 7 February 7, 2023.
8 103. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is a true and correct copy ofthe Agenda 9 Packet for the Permanent Ordinance, which contains a true and correct copy of the 10 Permanent Ordinance and the Notice of Public Hearing.
1. 1 104. Under California Government Code section 65858( a), the Urgency 12 Ordinance expired by operation of law on February 3, 2023, 45 days after it was 13 adopted. Furthermore, under California Law, the Permanent Ordinance would not take 14 effect until 30 days after the City Council approved it on the second reading. 15 105. Accordingly, on Monday February 6, 2023, Turner resubmitted its Major 16 Commercial Remodel Application (the " Resubmitted Application") for the Main Street 17 Property, which was no longer subject to the CUP requirement in the Urgency 18 Ordinance.
19 106. On February 7, 2023, the City Council held the second reading of the 20 Permanent Ordinance. SOS submitted written comments to the City Clerk, explaining 21 that the public notice for the public hearing and first reading was invalid, requesting that 22 the public hearing on the Permanent Ordinance be reopened, and setting forth the 23 reasons for SOS' s opposition to the Permanent Ordinance. A true and correct copy of 24 SOS' s written comments is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 27 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 28 of 45 Page ID #: 28 1 107. Representatives of SOS also appeared in person at the February 7, 2023 2 City Council meeting, and reiterated SOS' s opposition to the Permanent Ordinance, and 3 its request that the public hearing be reopened. The City Council refused to reopen the 4 public hearing, and approved the Permanent Ordinance. 5 108. Attached as Exhibit E hereto is a true and correct copy of section 41- 313. 5 6 ofthe City' s Municipal Code, as enacted by the Urgency Ordinance and the Permanent 7 Ordinance.
8 109. On Wednesday, February 8, 2023, City staff sent an e- mail to Turner 9 regarding its Resubmitted Application. In that e- mail, staff ignore state law and claimed 10 that, under the City' s charter, the Urgency Ordinance has " immediate and lasting 11 effect," and thus " the development project and conditional use permit processes are still 12 applicable." A true and correct copy of the City staff s February 8, 2023 e- mail is 13 attached hereto as Exhibit F.
14 110. Later that day, counsel for SOS submitted a letter to the City Attorney, 15 Sonia Carvalho, explaining that because Government Code section 65858( a) explicitly 16 states that it applies to charter cities, City Staff statement and refusal to process the 17 application are plainly contrary to California law. The letter then requested that the City 18 Attorney explain why the application could not be processed and a building permit 19 issued before the Permanent Ordinance takes effect.
20 111. The City Attorney responded by asserting ( without citation to any 21 authority) that the City' s charter allows urgency ordinances to take immediate effect. 22 Again, this ignores the fact that Government Code section 65858( a) provides for a 45- 23 day expiration date for such urgency ordinances, and expressly states that charter cities 24 are subject to the provisions of section 65858.
28 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document I Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 29 of 45 Page 1D #: 29 1 112. A charter city cannot use provisions in its charter to override state statutes 2 that expressly apply to charter cities. Accordingly, the City Attorney' s indefensible 3 refusal to abide by California law is evidence of the malicious and discriminatory intent 4 that the City bears towards SOS and its homeless and impoverished clientele. 5 113. On March 15, 2023, the City again sent an e- mail addressing the status of 6 Turner' s Resubmitted Application, confirming that the Application has been closed and 7 that a new application for a CUP would be required instead. A true and correct copy of 8 the City' s March 15, 2023 e- mail is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9 F. The City' s Actions Cause Turner And SOS To Lose The Right To 10 Purchase The Main Street Property.
11 114. As a result of the City' s adoption of the Permanent Ordinance, and its 12 refusal to process Turner' s Resubmitted Application following the expiration of the 13 Urgency Ordinance, the Seller ofthe Main Street Property refused to extend the 14 Inspection Period under the PSA any further, and the PSA was terminated. 15 115, The Main Street Property is still on the market, and SOS and Turner could 16 potentially enter into a new contract to purchase the Property if their rights to develop a 17 medical office without the burdensome and impracticable requirement for applying for a 18 CUP were affirmed in this Action.
19 G. The CUP Process Is Futile And Unreasonably Burdensome. 20 116. Applying for a CUP to develop a medical office in the P district would be a 21 fatile, because the City Council is biased against SOS and its low income, homeless, and 22 Latina clientele, and will discriminate against them by refusing to grant such a permit. 23 117. Moreover, Turner' s funding of the purchase depends on its ability to lease 24 the space to SOS in accordance with its corporate purpose. Unfortunately, the Seller is 29 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 30 of 45 Page ID #: 30 1 no longer willing to hold the Main Street Property off the market and under contract to 2 Turner long enough for Turner and SOS to pursue approval of a CUP application. 3 118. In addition, Turner and SOS cannot apply for a CUP on property they do 4 not own without the permission of the property owner. 5 119. This means that, to apply for a CUP ( with little to no chance of success 6 given the City' s demonstrated bias), Turner and/or SOS would have to spend millions of 7 dollars to purchase the Main Street Property with no guarantee that they would ever be 8 able to use the building. Neither Turner nor SOS has sufficient funds to make such an 9 imprudent gamble.
10 120. The discriminatory requirement to apply for a CUP, in and of itself, 11 therefore, imposes an unreasonable burden that puts SOS and Turner at a disadvantage, 12 since persons and entities not subject to that requirement will be able to purchase 13 properties in the P District without a contingency period, knowing that they will be able 14 to use the properties for medical offices as a matter of right. 15 H. Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies.
16 12t. To the extent that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required, SOS 17 exhausted its administrative remedies by appearing at the second reading of the 18 Permanent Ordinance, stating the reasons for its opposition both orally and in writing, 19 and making an earnest request that the City Council reopen the public hearing on the 20 Permanent Ordinance to consider the grounds for SOS' s opposition to the Permanent 21 Ordinance. The City Council unreasonably refused to do so, and adopted the Permanent 22 Ordinance over SOS' s opposition.
23 122. SOS also attempted to timely obtain the ministerial approvals that would be 24 necessary to remodel the Main Street Property without a CUP. That attempt was fully 30 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 31 of 45 Page 1D #: 31 1 and finally rejected by the City in Exhibits E and F, hereto. 2 123. SOS was prevented and excused from appearing at the first reading of the 3 Permanent Ordinance because notice of that hearing was defective under California 4 Government Code section 65094.
5 124. Specifically, the notice did not reference the Planning Commission' s 6 recommendation regarding the Ordinance as required by law, did not provide any hint or 7 suggestion that government subsidized, non- profit, and philanthropic medical offices 8 were going to be treated differently than all other medical offices, and, most importantly, 9 the notice did not indicate that applications that had been duly submitted before the 10 Permanent Ordinance took effect ( such as SOS' s) were not going to be grandfatbered in 11 and exempted from the CUP Requirement.
12 1. Standing.
13 125. SOS has standing to bring this Action on behalf of itself for injuries to its 14 own rights as set forth below. SOS also has standing to assert Turner' s claims by virtue 15 of Turner' s assignment of all of its claims and causes of action to SOS. A true and 16 correct copy ofthe Assignment of Claims Agreement between Turner and SOS is 17 attached hereto as Exhibit H.
18 126. In addition, SOS has organizational standing to bring suit on behalf of its 19 staff of doctors, nurses, and other health care providers, because ( 1) those staff members 20 would have standing to sue on their own right, ( 2) the interests this Action seeks to 21 vindicate are germane to SOS' s purpose, and ( 3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief 22 requested requires the participation of individual staff members in the lawsuit. 23 127. Finally, SOS also has standing to assert claims for discrimination and 24 violation of the rights of its patients for two reasons. First, SOS is asserting claims 31 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document I Piled 03/ 20/ 23 Page 32 of 45 Page ID #: 32 1 based on damage inflicted on its own business due to unlawful discrimination and 2 violation of the rights of its patients. Second, SOS has standing to assert constitutional 3 violations of its patients' rights because: ( 1) SOS itself has suffered a substantial injury4 in-fact, in the form of the loss of the right to purchase the Main Street Property, as well 5 as the loss of significant funds spent in developing the Property and extending the PSA, 6 thereby giving SOS a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the issue in 7 dispute, ( 2) SOS has a close enough relationship to its patients to justify standing, and 8 ( 3) the patients themselves are unable and unlikely to assert claims against the City 9 relating to its zoning ordinances because ( a) most lack sufficient financial resources to 10 fund litigation, ( b) many ofthe potential patients that could be served in the P District 11 are as yet unknown, and ( c) the Ordinances have an indirect effect on their rights and the 12 existing ordinances are likely unknown to them.
13 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
14 Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution-- 15 Substantive Due Process, Under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 2201) 16 128. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every 17 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 127, inclusive, as set forth above. 18 129. The Urgency Ordinance, the Permanent Ordinance, and Municipal Code § 19 41- 313. 5( p), on their face and as applied, impose the discriminatory CUP Requirement 20 on Medical Offices operated by Non-Profit Entities in the P District, while not requiring 21 a CUP for Medical Offices that are operated by For-Profit Entities in that same District. 22 130. Based on SOS' s preliminary estimate, there appear to be at least 42 For23 Profit Entities that are currently operating Medical Offices in the P District. 24 131. The salient characteristic ofNon-Profit Entities that is not shared with For32 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1. Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 33 of 45 Page ID#: 33 1 Profit Entities providing medical services is that Non- Profit Entities provide medical 2 services to patients who generally cannot afford to purchase those services from Fora Profit Entities. In Santa Ana, the patients who typically visit Medical Offices operated 4 by Non-Profit Entities are ( a) predominantly Latino immigrants with low incomes and 5 ( b) homeless persons of various ethnicities.
6 M. The motivating intent, and effect, of the CUP Requirement enacted by the 7 Ordinances is to discriminate against the homeless, low-income, immigrant, and Latino 8 patients who are served by Medical Offices operated by Non- Profit Entities by depriving 9 them of the fundamental right of the opportunity to access healthcare from entities 10 willing to provide it, including the right to access reproductive healthcare. The 11 motivating factor and effect ofthe CUP Requirement is also to discriminate against the 12 Non-Profit Entities, themselves, based on their willingness to provide health care to such 13 patients.
14 133. The discriminatory CUP Requirement, both on its face and as applied, also 15 ( 1) infringes on and violates SOS' s fundamental right of association and the 16 fundamental rights of its doctors, nurses, and other health care providers to privacy and 17 to freely associate with persons of their own choosing, guaranteed by the First and 18 Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, and ( 2) infringes on and 19 violates the fundamental rights of SOS' s patients to privacy and to freely associate with 20 persons of their own choosing, guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth amendments to 21 the United States Constitution by, among other things, interfering with their right to seek 22 health care, including reproductive health care, from doctors, nurses, and other health 23 care providers willing to provide it.
24 134. The CUP Requirement is not narrowly tailored, and does not serve any 33 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 34 of 45 Page ID #: 34 1 compelling state interest. Indeed, the requirement is arbitrary and not rationally related 2 to any legitimate governmental purpose. There is no reasonable basis for discriminating 3 between Medical Offices operated by Non- Profit Entities and Medical Offices operated 4 by For-Profit Entities.
5 135. Instead, the CUP Requirement and the related discriminatory conduct by 6 the City against Non- Profit Entities and the patients they serve are based solely on 7 personal and group animus against, and malicious intent towards, people who are 8 homeless, low-income, immigrant, and Latina, as well as against those organizations 9 that would provide healthcare and other services to these groups of people. 10 136. Indeed, the respective administrative records for the Ordinances do not 11 contain any explanation or evidence whatsoever to justify imposing the CUP 12 Requirement on Non- Profit Entities, but not imposing it on other entities. 13 137. As a pretextual justification for the discriminatory CUP requirement, the 14 City' s Staff Reports for the Urgency Ordinance and Permanent Ordinance falsely stated 15 that the zoning provisions for the P District "[ did] not currently permit medical uses 16 operated by government, government subsidized, not- for-profit, or philanthropic 17 entities." This is untrue.
18 138. Prior to the adoption of the Urgency Ordinance and the Permanent 19 Ordinance, the City' s Zoning Code allowed Medical Offices in the P District, without 20 any restrictions or requirements regarding the type of entities that were permitted to 21 operate those Medical Offices. Indeed, the Hurtt Family Health Clinic, which is a 22 FQHC, and the St. Joseph Heritage Health Group are prime examples ofNon-Profit 23 Entities that have operated Medical Offices in the P District for many years without 24 having to obtain a CUP or any other discretionary permit to conduct their operations in 3 4-
Complaint of Share Our Selves
T
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 35 of 45 Page ID #: 35 1 that District.
2 139. This pretextual justification was designed to disguise the City' s 3 discriminatory motive, by making it appear that the City was expanding the rights of 4 Non-Profit Entities when, in fact, it was unlawfully restricting them as a result of animus 5 towards the type of patients who typically visit Medical Offices operated by Non-Profit 6 Entities.
7 140. There is no governmental interest that justifies the City' s discriminatory 8 conduct as alleged herein, and such actions on the part ofthe City truly shock the 9 conscience, because they are intended to injure and exclude people who are homeless, 10 low- income, immigrant, and Latino, as well as the charitable organizations that provide 11 these individuals with medical care.
12 141. California law prohibits local governments from engaging indiscrimination 13 based on race, national origin, immigration status, or wealth. In its February 6, 2023 14 letter to the Mayor and the City Council, which was hand- delivered to the City Clerk at 15 the outset ofthe February 7, 2023 meeting ofthe City Council, SOS explained the 16 discriminatory and unlawful nature of the Permanent Ordinance. 17 142. After the letter was delivered, the meeting was then delayed for almost 90 18 minutes as the Mayor and councilmembers remained in closed session, apparently to 19 watch President Biden' s State of the Union address on TV. The letter-- which the 20 Mayor, councilmembers, and. City Attorney had adequate time to read, and did read 21 based on and the statements that the City Attorney made later in the meeting— and the 22 remarks that the representatives of SOS and Turner addressed to the Mayor and 23 councilmembers during the public comment segment of the meeting, provided the City 24 with an opportunity to reflect and make reasoned and rational decisions, eliminating any 35 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document I Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 36 of 45 Page 1D 1#: 36 1 possibility that this discrimination was negligent or inadvertent. 2 143. The City Council passed the Permanent Ordinance anyway, in deliberate 3 indifference to the rights of Turner, SOS, and SOS' s patients, and in a manner that 4 deliberately flouted state law and impermissibly infringed on on ( a) SOS' s fundamental 5 right of association and its equitable interest in leasing and using the Main Street 6 Property as an expanded outpatient clinic; ( b) Turner' s fundamental right of association 7 and its equitable interest in purchasing the Main Street Property pursuant to the PSA, S and leasing it to SOS; and ( c) the fundamental rights of SOS' s homeless, low income, 9 immigrant, and Latino patients to pursue their fundamental rights of privacy and 10 association, and the right to seek health care from an organization willing to provide it, 11 including the right to seek reproductive health care. 12 144. SOS is a government- subsidized, not- for-profit, and philanthropic entity 13 that wishes to operate a medical office in the City' s P District, but has been thwarted by 14 the City' s actions, the Urgency Ordinance, and the Permanent Ordinance, as set forth 15 above.
16 145. Turner and SOS had a contractual, equitable, and constitutionally protected 17 fundamental right to purchase, lease, and use the Main Street Property " by right" for 18 medical office use, according to the same laws applicable to other similarly situated 19 persons, including the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of the City' s 20 animus toward people who are homeless, low-income, immigrant, and Latino and those 21 who provide these individuals with health care. Since other similarly situated entities 22 were allowed to use property in the P District for medical offices as a matter of right, 23 that right could not be constitutionally denied to Turner and SOS based on a violation of 24 fundamental constitutional rights and impermissible personal and group animus. 36 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8; 23- cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 37 of 45 Page ID #: 37 1 146. Based on the foregoing, sections 4 and 8 of the Urgency Ordinance, 2 sections 9 and 16 of the Permanent Ordinance, and the discriminatory CUP Requirement 3 in Municipal Code § 41- 313. 5( p) are void in that they deny and violate the rights of 4 SOS, Turner, and SOS' s patients to, substantive due process guaranteed by the 5 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 6 147. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result ofthe imposition ofthe 7 discriminatory CUP Requirement in the Urgency Ordinance and. the Permanent 8 Ordinance, SOS lost the opportunity to lease, and Turner lost the opportunity to 9 purchase the Main Street Property, as well as deposits paid to the Seller to extend the 10 PSA, and SOS' s patients have lost the opportunity to exercise their fundamental rights 11 of privacy and association and the right to seek health care at the expanded SOS 12 location.
13 148. 7n addition, SOS and Turner incurred fees and costs in connection with the 14 proposed purchase and remodeling of the Main Street Property which have now gone to 15 waste as a proximate result of the City' s wrongful and discriminatory conduct as alleged 16 above. Such conduct has caused SOS and Turner to suffer monetary damages in an 17 amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $ 500,000. 18 149. Turner has assigned all of its claims against the City to SOS to pursue in 19 this Action. SOS has standing to assert discrimination against it based on the identities 20 of its patients for the reasons set out above.
21 150. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between SOS and the City 22 relative to their respective rights and duties in that SOS contends that ,sections 4 and 8 of 23 the Urgency Ordinance, sections 9 and 16 ofthe Permanent Ordinance, and the 24 discriminatory CUP Requirement in Municipal Code § 41- 313. 5( p) are void, invalid, 37 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page M of 45 Page f D#: 38 1 and unenforceable, both on their face and as applied to SOS, for the reasons set forth 2 above, and. the City disputes these contentions and contends that the Urgency Ordinance 3 and Permanent Ordinance, and section 41- 135. 5( p) are valid, enforceable, and in full 4 force and effect.
5 151. SOS desires a declaration as to the validity of sections 4 and 8 of the 6 Urgency Ordinance (to the extent such Ordinance is still in effect), ,sections 9 and 16 of 7 the Permanent Ordinance, and the discriminatory CUP Requirement in Municipal Code 8 § 41- 313. 5( p), both on their face and as applied to SOS' s intended operation of a 9 Medical Office in the P District. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at 10 this time so that SOS may ascertain its rights and duties with regard to operating a 11 Medical Office in the P District. Without such a declaration, it will be impossible for 12 SOS to obtain a lease or purchase of property in the P District for the establishment of a 13 Medical Office.
14 152. In addition, SOS is without an adequate remedy at law, because the 15 violations of constitutional rights that it and its patients have suffered and continue to 16 suffer cannot be adequately compensated by money damages. 17 153. Injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate to prevent the City from 18 continuing to violate the U.S. Constitution. Unless enjoined and restrained by this 19 Court, the City will continue to make it impossible for SOS to obtain an expanded 20 outpatient clinic in the P District to better serve its patients. 21 154. Accordingly, as a result of the City' s violation ofthe constitutional rights 22 alleged above, SOS is entitled to ancillary temporary, preliminary, and permanent 23 injunctive relief enjoining the Defendants from applying, implementing, and enforcing 24 sections 4 and 8 in the Urgency Ordinance, sections 9 and 16 in the Permanent 38 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document I Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 39 of 45 Page ID ##:39 1 Ordinance, and the discriminatory CUP Requirement in Municipal Code § 41- 313. 5( p). 2 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
3 ( Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution — Equal 4 Protection, Under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, 28 U.S. C. §§ 1331 & 2201) 5 155. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every 6 allegation contained in paragraphs 1- 127, 129- 145, and 147- 154, inclusive, as set forth 7 above.
8 156. Based on the foregoing, sections 4 and 8 of the Urgency Ordinance, 9 sections 9 and 16 of the Permanent Ordinance, and the discriminatory CUP Requirement 10 in Municipal Code § 41- 313. 5( p) are void in that they deny and violate the rights of 11 SOS, Turner, and SOS' s patients to, equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the 12 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 13 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
14 Declaratory And Injuntive Relief For Violation of Article I, §§ 1, 1. 1, 7 Of The 15 California Constitution -- Substantive Due Process, Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 16 1060 & 28 U. S. C. § 2201)
17 157. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1- 127, 129- 145, and 147- 154, inclusive, as set forth 18 above.
19 158. Based on the foregoing, sections 4 and 8 ofthe Urgency Ordinance, 20 21
sections 9 and 16 ofthe Permanent Ordinance, and the discriminatory CUP Requirement 22 in Municipal Code § 41- 313. 5( p) are void in that they deny and violate the rights of 23 SOS, Turner, and SOS' s patients to, substantive due process guaranteed by the California Constitution.
24 39
Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 40 of 45 Page 1D #: 40 1 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 ( Violation of the Article I, §§ 1, 1. 1, & 7 Of The California Constitution — Equal 3 Protection, Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1060 & 28 U.S. C. § 2201.) 4 159. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every 5 allegation contained in paragraphs 1- 127, 129- 145, and 147- 154, inclusive, as set forth 6 above.
7 160. Based on the foregoing, sections 4 and 8 of the Urgency Ordinance, 8 sections 9 and 16 of the Permanent Ordinance, and the discriminatory CUP Requirement 9 in Municipal Code § 41- 313. 5( p) are void in that they deny and violate the rights of 10 SOS, Turner, and SOS' s patients to, equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 11 California Constitution.
12 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
13 Supremacy Clause and State Law Preemption 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331 & 2201) 14 161. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1- 127, 129- 145, and 147- 154, inclusive, as set forth 15 above.
16 162. By openly discriminating against FQHCs, like SOS, section 4 and 8 of the 17 Urgency Ordinance, sections 9 and 16 ofthe Permanent Ordinance, and the 18 19
discriminatory CUP Requirement in Municipal Code § 41- 313. 5( p) stand as an obstacle 20 to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. 21 163. More specifically, as an FQHC, SOS is funded by the United States 22 government to provide health care services to medically underserved populations. 23 FQHCs were established by Congress in 42 U.S.C. § 1395x, and are funded by grants 24 under 42 U.S. C. § 254b. Section 254b specifically allows for grants that take into 40 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 41 of 45 Page ID #: 41 1 account the need for medical services in homeless and high poverty populations. 2 164. In addition, various federal regulations and state statutes and regulations 3 embrace a legislative policy against discrimination in the provision of health care 4 services based on source ofpayment, including 42 CFR §§ 460. 98, 460. 112, Cal Health 5 & Sa£ Code § 1256. 2, & 22 CCR §§ 97520. 15, 70707. Discrimination against health 6 care provided by government- funded entities also impermissibly discriminates against 7 those individuals with disabilities who rely on such funding due to inability to work as a 8 result of their disabilities, as well as seniors who rely on such funding due to retirement. 9 165. The Public Health Service Act provides that eligible community health 10 centers and their employees are employees of the federal Public Health Service (" PHS") 11 for certain purposes. The Secretary of Health and Human Services deems a community 12 health center to be a PHS employee after the center has qualified for certain federal 13 assistance. Once a community health center is deemed a PHS employee, it enjoys 14 immunity from those acts that relate to its employment, and any actions against it are 15 treated as actions against the United States. Furthermore, for a FQHC receiving funds 16 under 42 U.S. C. § 254b, any officer, governing board member, or employee of such an 17 entity . . . shall be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes 18 such as immunity from liability for medical malpractice, etc. 19 166. There is, therefore, a direct agency relationship between FQHCs, such as 20 SOS, and the federal government. Sections 4 and 8 ofthe Urgency Ordinance, sections 21 9 and 16 of the Permanent Ordinance, and the discriminatory CUP Requirement in 22 Municipal Code § 41- 313. 5( p) interfere and conflict with the accomplishment and 23 execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress, particularly with respect to 24 providing health care to underserved populations, including homeless persons. 41 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 42 of 45 Page [ D#: 42 1 167. Both on their face, and as applied to SOS, sections 4 and. 8 of the Urgency 2 Ordinance, sections 9 and 16 of the Permanent Ordinance, and the discriminatory CUP 3 Requirement in Municipal Code § 41- 313. 5( p) interfere and directly conflict with 4 Congress' s full purpose and objections set forth in §§ 1395x and 254b ( as well as the 5 legislative policy against source of payment discrimination), by placing burdens on 6 FQHCs that do not apply to private health care providers, because FQHCs are funded by 7 the government, and because they provide services to homeless and high poverty 8 populations.
9 168. Congress had particular purposes and objectives in mind in creating and 10 funding FQHCs, including the provision of health care to the very populations that the 11 City is attempting to discriminate against in the Urgency Ordinance and the Permanent 12 Ordinance. Leaving sections 4 and 8 ofthe Urgency Ordinance, sections 9 and 16 ofthe 13 Permanent Ordinance, and the discriminatory CUP Requirement in Municipal Code § 14 41- 313. 5( p) in place would compromise those objectives. Furthermore, there is no 15 reason to believe that Congress anticipated that cities would enact zoning ordinances 16 expressly discriminating against FQHCs or would be content to let such direct and 17 intentional interference with its purposes remain in place. 18 169. By virtue of this conflict with federal and state law sections 4. and 8 of the 19 Urgency Ordinance, sections 9 and 16 ofthe Permanent Ordinance, and the 20 discriminatory CUP Requirement in Municipal Code § 41- 313. 5( p) are void in that they 21 violate the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution, and California law. 22 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
23 ( Petition For Writ Of Mandate Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1085, FRCP Rule .) 24 170. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every 42 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504. Document I Piled 03/ 20/ 23 Page 43 of 45 Page 1D #: 43 1 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 169, inclusive, as set forth above. 2 171. For all of the reasons set forth above, sections 4 and 8 of the Urgency 3 Ordinance, sections 9 and 16 of the Permanent Ordinance, and the discriminatory CUP 4 Requirement in Municipal Code § 41- 313. 5( p) are unconstitutional and void. 5 172. As such, the City has a ministerial duty to void, vacate, and strike sections 4 6 and 8 of the Urgency Ordinance, sections 9 and 16 of the Permanent Ordinance, and the 7 discriminatory CUP Requirement in Municipal Code § 41- 313. 5( p). 8 173. SOS is without an adequate remedy at law, because the violations of 9 constitutional rights that it and its patients have suffered and continue to suffer cannot be 10 adequately compensated for by money damages.
11 SEVENTH CLAIM, FOR RELIEF
12 Declaratory Relief re Expiration Of The Urgency Ordinance, Under Cal. Gov. 13 Code § 65858, Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1060 & 28 U.S. C. § 2201) 14 174. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every 15 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 127, inclusive, as set forth above. 16 175. Under California Government Code section 65858( a), the Urgency 17 Ordinance expired by operation of law on February 3, 2023, 45 days after it was 18 adopted.
19 176. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between SOS and the City 20 relative to their respective rights and duties in that SOS contends that the Urgency 21 Ordinance has expired under California law, while the City disputes that contention and 22 contends that the Urgency Ordinance is valid, enforceable, and still in full force and 23 effect, and that its urgency ordinances prohibiting and restricting land uses are not 24 required to comply with the expiration period set forth in Government Code section 43 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 44 of 45 Page ID #: 44 1 65858( a).
2 177. SOS desires a declaration as to both the expiration of the Urgency 3 Ordinance, and the City' s obligation to comply with the expiration period set forth in 4 Government Code section 65858( a) when enacting urgency ordinances that prohibit and 5 restrict land uses in the future. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this 6 time so that the parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties with respect to 7 the City' s Urgency Ordinance and similar ordinances in the future. Without such a 8 declaration, the City will continue to pass urgency ordinances, and take the unlawful 9 position that the ordinances do not expire in accordance with California law. 10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment as follows:
11 For the First and Second Claims for Relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial, but in no event less than 12 500, 000.
13 For the First through Fifth Claims for Relief, appropriate declaratory and 14- injunctive relief, as prayed for above.
15 For the Sixth Claim for Relief, a writ of mandate as prayed for above. 16 For the Seventh Claim for Relief, appropriate declaratory relief as prayed for 17 above.
For costs of suit and attorney' s fees incurred by Plaintiff herein; and 18 For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 19 DATED: March 20, 2023 CONNOR, CHER & HEDENK MP LLP
20 21 By:
Ed o d M. Connor
22 AlWheys for Plaintiff Share Our Selves
Corporation
23 24
44 Complaint of Share Our Selves
ase 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1 Piled 03/ 20/ 23 Page 45 of 45 Page ID#: 45 1 VE.RWi[ CATION
2 I, Christy Ward, declare and say:
3 1. I am the Chief Executive Officer of plaintiff and petitioner Share Our 4 Selves Corporation, and I am authorized to make this verification on its behalf. 5 2. I have read the foregoing" Complaint OfShare Our Selves Corporation For 6 Damages, And Declaratory And Injunctive Relief, For Constitutional Violations, And 7 Petition For Writ Of Mandate" and I Hereby verify that I am informed and believe the 8 facts alleged therein are true.
9 1 declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of Californiathat the 10 foregoing is true and correct.
1 ]. Executed this twentieth day ofMarch, 2023, at_ KJeo - 6.pe., California. 12 13 C rzst War
14 15 DEMAND FOR. l-URY TRIAL
16 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38( b), Plaintiff Share Our Selves 17 Corporation hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues triable by a jury in this action. 18 DATED: March 20, 2023 CONNO . , FLETCHER & HEDENKAMP LLP 19 By:
fi UmondN —Connor
20 Attorneys for Plaintiff Share Our Selves
Corporation
21 22
23 24
45 Complaint of Share Our Selves
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1- 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #: 46 e
Ebit xhl
Case 3: 23- cv-00504 Document 1- 1 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #: 47 Doug Hedlenkamp
From: Pezeshkpour, Ali < APezeshkpour@santa- ana. org>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 9:25 PM
To: Kate Hirsh
Cc: Thai, Minh; Paul Simonds; Matsler, Sean; Schloss, E. J.; Logan Harper Subject: RE: 2670 Main Street- medical use- follow up
Attachments: 2670 N. Main Street- Project Plans( 8- 19- 22)( 15991678. 1). pdf External Sender]
Hi Kate,
Thank you for sharing the attached plans with the Planning Division for review. Fused on your description, Share Our Selves proposes to demolish the entire third floor' s square footage in order to reduce the gross building square footage such that only 139 onsite parking spaces would be required for the remaining square footage' s medical office use.
Insofar as the proposed use and its required onsite parking conform to Zoning Code requirements, the review process would be administrative.
Removal of the third floor' s square footage would be subject to administrative review by the Planning Division for conformance to zoning code and Citywide Design Guidelines for conformance to development standards and design policies. Once cleared for plan check by the Building Division, the plans would be reviewed for full conformance to any applicable codes, including building and fire.
Please let me know if I can answer any additional questions.
All the best,
Ali
From: Kate Hirsh< khirsh@turnerimpact. com>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:48 PM
To: Pezeshkpour, Ali< APezeshkpour@santa- ana. org>
Cc: Thai, Minh< mthai@santa- ana. org>; Paul Simonds< paul@curtpringle. com>; Matsler, Sean S Mats ler@coxcastle. com>; Schloss, E. J. < ESchloss@coxcastle. com>; Logan Harper< Iharper@turnerimpact. com> Subject: 2670 Main Street- medical use- follow up
Ali,
Thank you for your time to discuss our proposed project at 2670 Main Street. We debriefed as a project team and would like to pursue the concept of removing the 3rd floor from the project. This would reduce the building square footage from 44, 066 to 27, 750 and the building would be 100% medical office use. At medical office parking requirements of 5: 1000 that would equate to 139 parking stalls, and we currently have 139 parking stalls on site. The building exterior would maintain the same finish and overall aesthetic, but the overall building height would be less. We would explore ways to use the existing 3" floor wail structure as the new rooftop parapet/ mechanical screen.
It is my understanding that medical office is a by-right use, and if we eliminate building SF so that the proposed use can be 100% parked on site, there is no minor exception or other entitlement request. Our goal in pursuing this option would be to get planning signoff on our plans prior to expiration of our property due diligence period in February. I believe we would need to put something similarto a zoning package( site plan, floor plans, elevations, landscape plan) 1 Case 8: 2.3- cv- 00504 Document 1- 1 Piled 03/ 20/ 23 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #: 48 together for planning review and approval for submittal to the building department. Can you please let me know the requirements for the plan submittal so we can get our architect moving ASAP? am reattaching the existing building plans as submitted for the original parking request for quick reference.
Thanks again and we are hopeful this is a viable path forward for this project and tenant.
Sincerely,
Kate
Kate Hirsh
Director
Turner Impact Capital
1702 Olympic Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90404
D: 31.0. 752. 9623 1 C: 310. 658. 3219
www. turnerimpact. com
z
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 1 of 1.8 Page ID #: 49 Exhl" bit
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #: 50 Planning and Building Agency
santa-ana,orgldepartmentslplanning- and- building)
i Item # 39
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
December 20, 2022
TOPIC: Urgency Ordinance to Amend various sections of Chapter 41 ( Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code ( SAMC) Pertaining to Regulating Noxious Uses, Medical Offices Operated by Government, Government- Subsidized, Not- for- Profit, or Philanthropic Entities, Electric Fences, and Various Use Definitions AGENDA TITLE:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2022- 07 —An Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana Amending Various Sections of Chapter 41 ( Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code ( SAMC) Related to Noxious Uses, Medical Offices Operated by Government, Government- Subsidized, Not- for- Profit, or Philanthropic Entities, Electric Fences, and Various Use Definitions
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2022- 07 and adopt the Urgency Ordinance by two-thirds ( 213) vote to amend various sections of Chapter 41 ( Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code ( SAMC).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is proposing to amend several sections of Chapter 41 ( Zoning) of the SAMC to accomplish the following: address current and immediate threats to the public health, safety, or welfare due to the absence of regulations on noxious uses in close proximity to schools, parks, and residences; the absence of clear definitions defining and characterizing the various professional and administrative, and medical and nonmedical land uses and a conditional use permit ( CUP) requirement for medical offices operated by government, government- subsidized, not-for- profit, or philanthropic entities; standards for construction of electric fences; and various use definitions to effectively carry out regulations. The proposed amendments are described in further detail in the Discussion section of this report.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to SB 1000, the City was required to address Environmental Justice in the General Plan Update, The General Plan includes numerous goals, policies, and implementation actions that were developed in collaboration with the community to address environmental issues that Santa Ana residents face on a daily basis. Staff is proposing to amend several sections of Chapter 41 ( Zoning) of the SAMC to address current and immediate threats to the public health, safety, or welfare due to the absence of regulations on noxious uses in close proximity to schools, parks, and residences. In addition, the absence of clear definitions defining and characterizing the various professional and administrative, and medicaLand- oanmadmal land 1L%e_&,-njd_a_r_QndAjQWI imo narmif w1irpment faLinedical City Council 39 -- 1 12120/ 2022
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #: 51 ZOA No. 2022- 07-- Urgency Ordinance
December 12, 2022
offices operated by government, government-subsidized, not- for- profit, or philanthropic entities in the Professional ( P) zoning district hinder the City' s ability to meet the goals expressed in SAMC Section 41- 1 ( Purpose) to implement a regulatory land use and development framework to promote the health, safety, and the general welfare of the residents of Santa Ana. The proposed ordinance establishes a decision making process for the City to identify, evaluate, regulate, address, and reduce the potential impact to the built environment stemming from these land uses. The need is urgent as the City has and will continue to receive a higher rate of appeals of the City's permitting process pertaining to these land uses within the P zoning district. Lastly, there have been near daily police and/or code enforcement- related incidents regarding transient populations trespassing on and causing damage to private, non- residential properties abutting railroad rights- of-way in Santa Ana. Options and development standards for the installation of electric fencing types on private property to deter this type of activity are needed. Table 1 below and on the following pages illustrates the existing and proposed regulations to address these immediate needs and issues affecting the community.
Table 1: ZOA No. 2022- 07 Current and Proposed Text Regulations Topic Existing. Zoning Code Regulations Proposed Zoning Code Regulations Noxious Uses The SAMC regulates industrial and 1. Create new" noxious uses" section to noxious land uses through permitting require approval of a conditional use them in industrial zoning districts. permit for industrial type uses located However, the SAMC does not provide within 500 feet of a sensitive land use additional regulation for uses that have that requires a permit to discharge air a regional, state, or federal permit to contaminants or process or store emit or store or process hazardous regulated chemicals or substances waste that are in close proximity to Sec. 41- 199. 4).
sensitive land uses. 2. Update the Non- Conforming section of the Zoning Code to require a
conditional use permit for noxious
uses whenever an existing nonconforming business changes ownership and requires a new
certificate of occupancy. Additionally,
require businesses with these type of
permits to remain in compliance with
applicable laws or lose their
nonconforming status ( Sec. 41- 683
and Sec. 41- 683.6).
Medical Offices in The Professional( P) zoning district Revise the uses permitted subject to a the Professional permits medical and dental offices by conditional use permit section of the Zoning District right. However, the zoning district does Professional( P) zoning district to require not currently permit medical uses a conditional use permit for medical operated by government, government- offices operated by government, subsidized, not- for- profit, or government- subsidized. philanthropic entities.
Counseling Services The SAMC does not currently define Create" counseling services" definition in Definition counseling services. Division 2( Definitions), Article I of the Zonin Code 5ec. 41- 44. 6 .
City Council 39 -- 2 12120/ 2022
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document i.-2 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #: 52 ZOA No. 2022- 07— Urgency Ordinance
December 12, 2022
Medical Office- The SAMC does not currently define 1, Create" medical office" definition in Definition medical office. Division 2( Definitions), Article I of the Zoning Code( Sec. 41- 121).
2. Update the permitted uses sections
of the Professional ( P), Community
Commercial( Cl), Community
Commercial-- Museum District( ClMD), Arterial Commercial ( C5), and South Main Street Commercial
District( C- SM) to consistently use
medical office."
Professional, The SAMC does not currently define 1. Create" professional, business, and Business, and professional, business, and administrative office" definition in Administrative Office administrative office. Division 2( Definitions), Article I of the Definition Zoning Code( Sec.41- 127. 5)
2. Update the permitted uses sections
of the Professional( P), Community
Commercial( Cl), Community
Commercial-- Museum District( ClMD), Arterial Commercial( C5), and South Main Street Commercial
District( C- SM) to consistently use
professional, business, and
administrative office."
Electric Fences The SAMC is currently silent on electric 1. Create" electric fence" definition in fences. The SAMC neither defines nor Division 2( Definitions), Article I of the regulates electric fences, which have Zoning Code( Sec. 41- 54.5) become more widely used as a means 2. Add new section to regulate zones to secure property from theft and/ or and properties where electric fences vandalism. are permitted ( only in M1 and M2,
and only where abutting a rail rightof-way) subject to a minor exception Sec. 41- 610. 5 .
Noxious Uses
In response to community concerns related to environmental pollution and the proximity of certain industrial uses in relation to homes, schools, and parks, the City adopted numerous environmental justide policies and actions in its General Plan to amend use regulations and development standards in the Zoning Code. A majority of the actions in the General Plan related to use, buffers, and development standards will be analyzed and addressed through the comprehensive Zoning Code Update. However, noxious businesses in close proximity to parks, schools, and residences is of immediate concern as they pose an immediate threat to the health and safety of those recreating, attending school, or residing in their proximity. Additionally, federal, state, and regional permitting agency requirements alone are insufficient to properly protect the health and safety of residents as has been proven through the numerous businesses that continue to be licensed in close proximity to sensitive receptors even when they violate applicable federal and state laws. Staff is proposing to create a new Section 41- 199.4( Noxious uses) to require a CUP for industrial uses that require a permit to handle, store, emit or discharge regulated compounds, materials, chemicals, or substances from a regional, City Council 39 -- 3 12/ 20/ 2022
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1.- 2 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #: 53 ZOA No. 2022- 07 -- Urgency Ordinance
December 12, 2022
state, or federal agency when located within 500 feet of public park, school, or a property used or zoned for residential purposes.
To buttress this new amendment, staff also proposes to create a new Section 41- 683.6 Discontinuance of nonconforming noxious use) to require these types of businesses that do not have a CUP and are nonconforming to comply with development standards and CUP requirements when a business changes ownership, requires a new Certificate of Occupancy, or is in violation of any applicable federal, state, or local regulation for a period of sixty ( 60) consecutive days, receives three noncompliant notices, or is in violation for a total of ninety ( 90) days in a one year period.
Professional, Business, and Administrative Office; Counseling Services; Medical Offices Chapter 41 of the SAMC currently does not provide a definition for " professional, business, and administrative office," and zoning districts where the use is permitted utilize inconsistent terminology. Staff is proposing to create a new Section 41- 127. 5 to define professional, business, and administrative office" and to amend the uses permitted sections of various zoning districts where the use is permitted to utilize consistent terminology and provide clarity.
Chapter 41 of the SAMC currently permits " counseling services" in the General Commercial ( C2) zoning district subject to a CUP, but Chapter 41 does not provide a definition for the use. As such, businesses offering counseling services have attempted to operate in zoning districts where the use is not permitted under the impression that the use could be classified as a " professional, business, and administrative office" or a medical office." To provide clarity to prospective businesses, staff is proposing to create a new Section 41- 44, 6 to define " counseling services." Chapter 41 of the SAMC currently does not provide a definition for " medical office," and zoning districts where the use is permitted utilize inconsistent terminology. The lack of a definition and utilization of inconsistent terminology, staff spends an inordinate amount of time providing members of the public and prospective business operators clarification on what business uses are categorized as a medical office and where the use is permitted.
Staff is proposing to create a new Section 41- 121 to define " medical office" and to amend the uses permitted sections of various zoning districts where the use is permitted to provide consistency in terminology and clarity. The amendments would also permit medical offices operated by government, government- subsidized, not- for- profit, or philanthropic entities subject to approval of a CUP.
The above referenced definitions and amendment are needed to effectively carry out regulations and provide for their enforcement, without which the City would be in a precarious and untenable position when reviewing applications and making determinations to approve or deny a land use.
City Council 39— 4 12/ 20/ 2022
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #: 54 ZOA No. 2022- 07 _ Urgency Ordinance
December 12, 2022
Electrified Security Fences
There have been near daily police and/or code enforcement-related incidents regarding transient populations trespassing on and causing damage to private, non- residential properties abutting railroad rights-of-way in Santa Ana. To address this pressing security matter, provide property and business owners another option to protect property from theft or vandalism, staff is proposing to amend Section 41- 610.5 ( Walls and fences) of the SAMC to permit electric fences only in the Light Industrial ( M1) and Heavy Industrial M2) zoning districts, respectively, on properties that abut a railroad right- of-way subject to the issuance of a minor exception. Additionally, staff is proposing a number of development standards such as minimum distance from residential properties, screening requirements, and accessibility requirements to ensure community compatibility, aesthetic considerations, and emergency responder access are addressed and maintained.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(" CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to sections 15061( b)( 3) and 15061( b)( 5) of the CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as there is no possibility it will have a significant effect on the environment. As a result Environmental Review No. 2022- 123 will be filed upon adoption of this ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this action.
EXHIBIT( S)
1. Ordinance for ZOA No. 2022- 07
Submitted By:
Minh Thai, Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency Approved By: Kristine Ridge, City Manager
City Council 39 -- 5 12/ 20/ 2022
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #: 55 ORDINANCE NO. NS- XXX
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING VARIOUS
PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 41 ( ZONING) OF THE SANTA
ANA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NOXIOUS USES,
MEDICAL OFFICES OPERATED BY GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT- SUBSIDIZED, NOT- FOR- PROFIT, OR
PHILANTHROPIC ENTITIES, AND DEFINITIONS FOR
OTHER OFFICE USES
WHEREAS, pursuant to SB 1000, the City was required to address Environmental Justice in the General Plan Update due to a number of disadvantaged communities located within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the General Plan Update on April 19, 2022, which included numerous goals, policies, and implementation actions associated with addressing environmental justice; and
WHEREAS, developing, adopting, implementing, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies can help address longstanding environmental impacts on communities; and
WHEREAS, Land Use Element action 3. 2 states that the City will undertake updating the zoning code' s development and operational standards to address incompatibility of industrial uses in close proximity to sensitive receptors; and WHEREAS, the absence of clear and consistent use of terms and definitions for professional, business, and administrative office, medical office, and counseling service is inconsistent with the goals expressed by Santa Ana Municipal Code ( SAMC) Section 41- 1 ( Purpose) in that the City cannot effectively carry out regulations and provide for their enforcement without clear and enforceable terms and definitions; and WHEREAS, the absence of a conditional use permit requirement for medical offices operated by government, government- subsidized, not- for-profit, or philanthropic entities is inconsistent with the goals expressed by SAMC Section 41- 1 ( Purpose) in that discretion by the Planning Commission and City Council cannot be exercised to ensure that the location and operation of such facilities are compatible with the scale, character, and nature of surrounding properties and neighborhoods as specified in SAMC sections 41- 1 ( a), ( b), ( e), and ( f); and
WHEREAS, AB 358 was adopted August of 2021, authorizing property owners that meet specified requirements to install and operate electrified fences on their property to protect and secure commercial or industrial property, but the absence of locally-adopted standards in the Zoning Code allowing and regulating electrified fences on private property poses a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of property owners and passersby in Santa Ana, leading to potentially dangerous configurations of electrified fences that City Council 39 —6
o r, s xxx
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03120/ 23 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #: 56 do not meet local development standards that would otherwise ensure the safe design and installation of such fences; and
WHEREAS, there have been near daily police and/ or code enforcement- related incidents regarding transient populations trespassing on and causing damage to private, non- residential properties abutting railroad rights- of-way in Santa Ana; and WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare due to the absence of regulations on noxious uses in close proximity to schools, parks, and residences; the absence of conditional use requirements on medical offices operated by government, government-subsidized, not-far-profit, or philanthropic entities in the Professional ( P) zone; the lack of clear land use definitions that may work an adverse impact on existing communities, as well as negatively impact property values, personal privacy, and fire safety; and the lack of standards for the installation of electric fences on private property. These threats to public safety, health, and welfare justify adoption of this ordinance as an urgency ordinance to be effective immediately upon adoption by a two- thirds vote of the City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Santa Ana City Charter sections 415 and 417, based on the above findings, this Ordinance is declared by the City Council to be necessary as an emergency measure to protect and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Santa Ana and will become effective immediately if passed by the affirmative votes of at least two- thirds ( 2/ 3) of the members of the City Council. The City Council hereby finds that there is an urgent need to adopt these regulations in order to address the current and immediate threats set forth above.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana does ordain as follows:
Section 1. The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as finding by the City Council.
Section 2. Section 41- 44. 6 ( Counseling services) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby added to read as follows:
Sec. 41- 44. 6. - Counseling services.
A facility where personnel provide counseling sees,in individual orgroup sessions that focus specifically on mental development,„ recovery, rehabilitative vocational assistance, and employment preparation for the purposes of achieving independence, and/ or integration in the workplace and community. Fora practice roviding counseling services specializing in substance abuse, this includes a facility that provides substance abuse counseling practiced by a licensed professional, on an outpatient basis with or without the dispensing of medication onsite. " Counseling services" does not include " Medical office," which is separately defined.
Section 3. Section 41- 54. 5 ( Electric fence) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby added to read as follows:
City Council 39 — 7 0J3QJ; 9. - xxx
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #: 57 Sec. 41- 54. 5. - Electric fence.
Electric Fence" and " Electrified Fence" shall mean_any_fence powered by an electrical energizer with characteristics outlined and defined in California Civil Code Section 835 used to protect and secure industrial property.
Section 4. Section 41- 121 ( Reserved) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41- 121, - Medical office Reserved.
A medical office is a facility providing consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic, preventive surgical, or corrective personal treatment services by doctors or dentists, and their support staff, to support the healing of humans wherein such medical doctors and dentists are licensed. These facilities can be at health centers, individual doctor or dentist offices and exclude practices providing counseling services specializing in substance abuse, homeless support services, and medical research laboratories.
Section 5. Section 41- 127, 5 ( Professional, business, and administrative office) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby added to read as follows:
Sec. 41- 127. 5. - Professional, business, and administrative office.
A professional, business, or administrative office is an establishment providing.,direct over- the- counter" services or business service s to consumers or clients ( e. g., insurance agencies, real estate offices, travel agencies utility company offices, etc.) and office- type facilities occupied by businesses providing professional services and/ or engaged in the production of intellectual property.
Section 6. Section 41- 199. 4 ( Noxious uses) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby added to read as follows:
Sec. 41- 199. 4. - Noxious uses.
a) AnV use other than eating establishments listed in Section 41- 472 or 41- 472. 5 of this Chapter, regardless of the zoning district it is established or proposed to be established in, that requires a permit from a regional, state, or federal agency to handle store emit or discharge regulated compounds, materials chemicals or substances that is located within 500 linear feet of a public park, school ( K- 12) as defined by Section 11362. 768 of the Health and Safety„Code, or property used or zoned for residential purposes requires a conditional use permit.
LbA The 500_linear_foot distance shall be measured_from the outermost boundar roof the subject property to the closest„point of any public park. school. or property used or zoned for residential purposes.
LcA The property owner or business operator of a business regulated by subsection a) shall be responsible for notifying the City of anrequirement to obtain a permit from a regional, state, or federal agency. Notification to the City must be made City Council 39— 8 OIW-Z9Aq.3 s-xxx
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03/20/23 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #: 58 prior to obtaining any permit from a regional, state, , or federal_ agency for the business activities listed in subsection ( a).
d) A business regulated by this section shall be in compliance with all provisions established by this Code and all applicable federal state or local regulations and conditions established by regulating. and permitting agencies.
Section 7. Section 41- 313 ( Uses permitted in P district) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41- 313. - Uses permitted in P district.
The following uses are permitted in the P district:
a) Professional, business, and administrative offices where no merchandise is sold. b) Banks, savings and loan offices, credit unions, and mortgage and finance companies.
c) Travel agencies.
d) Medical and dental
e) Art galleries, art and photography studios.
f) Museums and science centers.
g) Print and copy services.
h) Pharmacies, limited to the dispensing of goods and merchandise related to health care only, and excluding drive-through facilities. i) Child care facilities.
j) Non- freestanding commercial and service uses which do not exceed ten ( 10) per cent of the floor space of the building in which they are located and which are supportive of, compatible with, and integrated into the professional and business uses on the same property, excluding drive-through facilities, and commercial uses which are open at any time between the hours of 12: 00 midnight and 5: 00 a. m.
k) Freestanding restaurants, cafes, and eating establishments, excluding drivethrough facilities and excluding any eating establishment specified in section 41- 313. 5.
Section 8. Section 41- 313. 5 ( Uses subject to a conditional use permit in the P district) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
City Council 39 -- 9 oI'NPR9.39-xxx
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1- 2 Piled 03/ 20/ 23 Page 11 of 18 Page ID #: 59 Sec. 41- 313. 5. - Uses subject to a conditional use permit in the P district.
The following may be permitted in the P district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit:
a. Convalescent hospitals, nursing homes, rest homes and extended care facilities. b. Hospitals.
c. Trade and professional schools,
d. Health clubs and gymnasiums.
e. Recreational or entertainment uses if carried on in conjunction with any of the uses specified in clauses ( e), ( f) and ( k) of section 41- 313. f. Ambulance and emergency medical response services.
g. Non- freestanding commercial and service uses which are open at any time between the hours of 12: 00 midnight and 5: 00 a. m., provided that such uses also meet the standards for commercial and service uses permitted under section 41- 313, and further provided that such uses have less than twenty thousand ( 20, 000) square feet of floor area.
h. Eating establishments open at any time between the hours of 12: 00 midnight and 5: 00 a. m. and located within one hundred fifty ( 150) feet of residentially zoned or used property, measured from property line to property line. i. Banquet facilities, subject to development and operational standards set forth in section 41- 199. 1.
j. Banquet facilities as an ancillary use, subject to development and operational standards set forth in section 41- 199. 1.
k. Adult day care facilities.
1. Clubs, fraternities and lodges.
m. Bail bond uses, subject to development and operation standards set forth in section 41- 323.
n. Churches and accessory church buildings.
o. Parking lots and parking structures subject to compliance with the requirements of Section 41- 324.
p. Medical offices operated by government, government- subsidized, not-for- profit, or philanthropic entities.
Section 9. Section 41- 365 ( Uses permitted in the C1 district) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41- 365. - Uses permitted in the C1 district.
The following uses are permitted in the C1 district:
a) Retail and service uses,
City Council 39— 1 a
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #: 60 b) Professional, business, and administrative and business- offices. c) Automobile parking lots and parking structures.
d) Automobile sales, but excluding truck, trailer, tractor and boat sales. e) Churches and accessory church buildings.
f) Mortuaries.
g) Theaters.
h) Hospitals, clinics, and sanitariums.
i) Animal hospitals and veterinaries.
j} Plant nurseries.
k) Gymnasiums.
1) Golf courses, both regulation and miniature, and driving ranges. m) Public utility structures, including electric distribution and transmission substations.
n) Restaurants, cafes, and eating establishments, other than those specified in Section 41- 365. 5.
o) Schools and studios operated for commercial or public purposes. p) Childcare facilities.
q) Service stations.
r) Automobile servicing.
s) Tattoo and/ or body art establishments, subject to the development and operational standards set forth in Section 41- 199. 3.
ft Medical offices.
Section 10. Section 41- 375. 1 ( Uses permitted in the CI- MD district) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41- 375. 1. - Uses permitted in the C1- MD district.
The following uses are permitted in the CI- MD district:
a Retail and service uses, other than those specified in section 41- 375. 2.
City Council 39 — 11 oWAR939- xxx
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 13 of 18 Page lD#: 61 b) Professional, business, and administrative and bassi offices where no merchandise is sold.
c) Medical and aroffices.
d) Theaters and cinemas.
e) Gymnasiums and health clubs.
f) Travel agencies, with no embarking or disembarking of passengers. g) Art galleries and art and photography studios.
h) Museums and science centers.
i) Restaurants, cafes, and eating establishments other than those specified in section 41- 375. 2, excluding eating establishments with drive- thru window service.
O Child care facilities.
Section 11. Section 41- 424 ( Uses permitted in the C5 district) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41- 424. Uses permitted in the C5 district.
The following uses are permitted in the C5 district:
a) Professional, business, and Aadministrative and prefess.0nal offices. b) Retail and service uses.
c) Automobile parking lots, but excluding the sale or storage of automobiles, trucks, trailers, boats, or tractors, whether new or used.
d) Churches, chapels, mortuaries, and theaters.
e) Government buildings.
f) Restaurants and cafes, other than those specified in Section 41- 424. 5. g) Schools and studios operated for commercial or public purposes. h) Child care facilities.
i) The printing, publishing, and circulation of a newspaper, including plant and office.
City Council 39 — 12
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #: 62 j} Two- family dwellings not exceeding one ( 1) unit per three thousand ( 3, 000) square feet of lot area, provided such units front on a secondary or local street. k) Gymnasiums and health clubs.
Medical offices.
Section 12. Section 41- 521 ( Uses permitted in the C- SM district) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41- 521. - Uses permitted in the C- SM district.
The following uses are permitted in the C- SM district:
a) Retail and service uses.
b) Professional, business, and administrative, and business offices. c) Public parking lots and parking structures.
d) Animal hospitals and veterinarians.
e) Gymnasiums, health clubs, and martial arts studios.
f) Public utility structures, including electric distribution and transmission substations.
g) Restaurants, cafes, coffeehouses, and eating establishments, other than those provided in section 41- 522, excluding the establishment of drive through service facilities.
h) Schools and studios operated for commercial or public purposes. i) Child care facilities.
0) Art galleries, museums and exhibit balls.
k) Plant nurseries.
1) Theaters.
m) Furniture stores.
n) Youth amusement rides ancillary to grocery, general merchandise and department retail store uses.
Lol Medical offices.
City Council 39-- 13 019& 9 93A_xxx
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03/ 20/23 Page 15 of 18 Page ID #: 63 Section 13. Section 41- 683 ( Discontinuance of nonconforming building or use) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41- 683. - Discontinuance of nonconforming building or use.
Except as provided in section 41- 683. 5 and 41- 683. 6, if a nonconforming use is discontinued, or if a nonconforming building is vacant, unused or unoccupied for a period of twelve ( 12) consecutive months, any subsequent use must conform in every respect to the provisions of this chapter, and a nonconforming building may not thereafter be used or occupied until it conforms in every respect to the provisions of this chapter.
Section 14. Section 41- 683. 6 ( Discontinuance of nonconforming noxious use) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby added to read as follows:
Sec. 41. 683. 6. - Discontinuance of nonconforming noxious use.
Lal If a nonconforming use of a building regulated by Section 41- 199. 4 recluires a new certificate of occupancy for any reason other than a change in business name with no change in owner of the business, legal, nonconforming status shall be lost and any subsequent use must conform in every respect to- the provisions of this chapter.
kb If a nonconforming use of a building regulated by Section- 41- 199. 4 is in violation of any applicable_ federal, state, or local regulation for a period of sixty ( 60) consecutive days, receives three noncompliant notices from a federal state or local_re_gulatory agency in a one ( 1 wear period, or is in violation for a total of ninety 94 days in a one 1 year period, legal nonconforming status shall be lost and any subsequent use of the building shall conform in every respect to the provisions of this chapter.
Section 15. Section 41- 610. 5 ( Wall and fence requirements in the industrial and commercial zones) of Chapter 41 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 41- 610. 5. - Wall and fence requirements in the industrial and commercial zones. a) In the industrial and commercial zones, walls and fences shall not exceed ten ( 10) feet in height, and shall not exceed four (4) feet in height where the wall or fence extends into the required front yard or any required landscaped area. b) On any lot in a C1, C2, C4, or C5 district, a concrete block wall not less than five 5) feet in height shall be erected along any property line contiguous to any residentially zoned property, except that such wall shall not exceed the height Iimitations prescribed in subsection ( a) of this section. This requirement may be waived by the planning commission upon a finding that the abutting property is in a period of transition to nonresidential use, or that, due to special circumstances, the wall would not promote the public health, safety, or welfare. c) Barbed wire is not permitted as part of a wall or fence except as follows:
City Council 39 -- 14 oMARRA-xxx
Case 8:23- cv- 00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03/20/ 23 Page 16 of 18 Page ID #: 64 1) In the M 1, M2 and LM districts: barbed wire is permitted subject only to the restrictions set forth hereinafter.
2) In the C1, C2, C4 and CM districts: barbed wire is permitted only in a rear year or side yard which is not viewable from a public street and is subject to the restrictions set forth hereinafter.
3) Barbed wire may not be used above the height limitations set forth in subsection ( a) of this section.
4) Barbed wire may not be used as part of any wall or fence which is adjacent to property used for residential purposes or to property which is used as a school, church, park, or youth center.
d Electric fences shall only be permitted in the M1 and M2 districts subject to the issuance of a minor exception pursuant to Article V of this Chapter and shall meet the requirements set forth in California Civil Code Section 835 and below:
Electric fences shall only be permitted on properties abutting a railroad rightof-way.
Electric fences shall be located at least one hundred and fifty ( 150) linear feet from a property used for residential_or public park use, or any prosy zoned for such a use, or schools ( K- 12) as defined by_Section 11362. 768 of the Health and Safety Code.
Electric fences are only_pe_rmitted in a rear or side yard which is not„viewable from a public street.
fAJ No electric fence shall be permitted, installed, or used unless it is completely surrounded and screened by a nonelectric wall that is at least six 6 feet in height. In no case shall the electric fence encroach into any required setback area.
Electric fences may exceed the height of the surrounding_ nonelectric wall by up to 18 inches.
JQ Any portion of the electric fence extending beyond the height of the surrounding nonelectric screen wall shall be angledaway from the property line at a 45- degree upward slope.
Electric fences shall be set back from existing walls and fences in a manner so as to prevent accumulation of debris and to prevent unsafe conditions from forming in any resulting gap from the_setback required by this subsection.
In no case shall._ an electric fence . exceed the maximum fence height established in subsection ( a).
Electric fences shall be installed to be as minimally intrusive as possible.
City Council 39 -- 15....._._. OINAPA9.39-xxx
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document, 1- 2 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 17 of 18 Page ID #: 65 O_OANo electric fence shall be energized during advertised business hours. 11 Electric fences shall be identified by prominent] pjaced warning signs that are legible from both sides of the fence. At minimum, the warning signs shall meet all of the following criteria:
The warning sins are placed at_each gate and access point, and at intervals along the fence not exceeding thirty (30) feet.
B) The warning signs are adjacent to any other signs relating to chemical radiological, or biological hazards.
LQ The warning signs are marked with written warning or a„ commonly recognized. symbol for shock, a written warning or a commonly recognized symbol to warn people with pacemakers, and a written or common recognized symbol about the danger of touching the„fence in wet conditions.
Electric fences equipped with monitored alarm systems may„require an alarm use_permit.
Accessibility to emergency personnel and first responders must be maintained through the use of a knox box or other access feature as determined by the Orange County Fire Authority and the Santa Ana Police De artment.
L 4AThe applicant and property owner shall enter into an agreement holding the City of Santa Ana harmless from all legal actions that may arise due to the operation of the electrified fence. The agreement shall be recorded with the property and shall release the City of Santa Ana from all liability whatsoever.
Section 16. The City Council finds and determines that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Sections 15060( c)( 2) and 15060( c)( 3) because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as there is no possibility it will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not a " project", as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 17. The City Council hereby declares, based on the findings set forth above, the urgency exists and that this Ordinance is necessary and appropriate to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare.
Section % This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
Section 19. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validi! Y of the remaining City Council 39 — 16 0092ARg_xxx
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1- 2 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 18 of 18 Page ID #: 66 portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 20. The Clerk of the Council shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law.
ADOPTED this day of 2022.
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
John M. Funk
Chief Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers:
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Ordinance No. NS- to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on and that said
ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana.
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
City Council 39— 17 01922A9.99-Xxx
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1- 3 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 1 of 76 Page ID #: 67 Exhibit
Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1.- 3 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 4 of 76 Page ID #: 70 ZOA No. 2022- 03: Zoning Code Amendments and Updates
January 17, 2023
Urgency Ordinance
At its regular meeting on December 20, 2022, the City Council approved an urgency ordinance (ZOA No. 2022- 07) amending various sections of Chapter 41 related to noxious uses; medical offices operated by government, government- subsidized, not-forprofit, or philanthropic entities; electric fences; and various use definitions. The amendments approved under the urgency ordinance are also included in this ZOA, should there be challenges related to the exigency posed by the threats to public health, safety, or welfare that were demonstrated by the urgency ordinance. In addition, staff has already begun evaluating the appropriate distances for expanding the buffer between noxious uses and sensitive receptors beyond 500 feet as directed by the City Council during the adoption of the urgency ordinance and will present a recommendation to the City Council at a future meeting.
DISCUSSION
Various sections within Chapter 41 of the SAMC have been revised periodically over the last several years to respond to changes in development and business practices, to adopt new permitting procedures, and to comply with changes to state and federal laws. In a continuing effort to comply with changes to state law, establish high- quality development standards, create a user friendly environment for residents and the business community, and to commence the work of enacting the various policies and actions set forth in the General Plan, the Planning Division is proposing revisions to various sections of the Zoning Code.
Table 1 below and on the following pages illustrates the existing and proposed regulations.
The amendments identified are the first of several amendments that will be made to the Zoning Code leading up to the comprehensive update of the Zoning Code. The proposed changes would apply citywide.
Table 1: ZOA No. 2022- 03 Current and Proposed Text Regulations Topic Existing Zoning Code Regulations Proposed. Zoning Code Regulations Family Daycare 1. Definition for" Child Care Facility' 1. Update definitions to conform to state Facilities Sec. 41- 42. 5). definition: Family daycare and
2. Uses permitted in the Single- Family Daycare center, respectively.
Residence( R1) section( Sec. 41- 2. Delete references to child care 232) requires approval of a land facilities in various Zoning Code use certificate for a large family sections in which residential uses are daycare facility. permitted, and create a new section
3. Child care facility permitted in the Sec. 41- 192. 6) allowing small and Professional( P), Community large family daycare in residential Commercial( C1), Community districts
Commercial— Museum District( Cl- 3. Delete references to child care MD), Arterial Commercial( C5), facilities in various commercial and Light Industrial ( M1), and South industrial zoning district sections and Main Street Commercial District( C- replace with new term" Daycare SM). center."
Regional Planned Regional institutions such as hospitals Add definition for" regional institution," Sign Programs and institutions of higher learning do such as hospitals and institutions of not benefit from the sign regulation I higher learning, to afford such uses the Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document .1- 3 Piled 03/ 20/ 23 Page 5 of 76 Page 1D #: 71 ZOA No. 2022- 03: Zoning Code Amendments and Updates
January 17, 2023
flexibility afforded by the, Zoning Code' s same benefits as regional commercial regulations on regional planned sign centers, automobile dealerships, and programs( Sec. 41- 885). attractions forthe purposes of flexible on- premises si na e.
Massage The SAMC currently allows massage 1. Revise the uses subject to a Establishments establishments in commercial zoning conditional use permit sections of the districts and plan areas where service Community Commercial (Cl), uses are permitted by right. Community Commercial--, Museum District( CI- MD), General
Commercial( C2), Planned Shopping
Center( C4), Arterial Commercial
C5), and South Main Street
Commercial District( C- SM) to
require a conditional use permit for
massage establishments.
2. Revise massage ordinance( Sec. 41-
1752) to require conditional use for
massage establishments.
3. Revise massage ordinance
definitions ( Sec. 41- 1751) to create
distinct definitions for chair massage
and ancillary massage
establishment, allowing them to be
regulated separately from massage
establishments.
Medical Offices in The Professional( P) zoning district Revise the uses permitted subject to a the Professional permits medical and dental offices by conditional use permit section of the Zoning District right. However, the zoning district does Professional( P) zoning district to require not currently permit medical uses a conditional use permit for medical operated by government, government- offices operated by government, subsidized, not- for-profit, or government-subsidized, not-for-profit, or philanthropic entities, hilanthro is entities.
Retail Use in Industrial zoning districts currently Update the uses permitted section in the Industrial Zoning allow retail uses occupying up to five Light Industrial( M1) district to allow retail Districts percent of a tenant space as an uses by right on properties that front ancillary use Sec. 41- 472. 1 . arterial streets Sec. 41472).
Change of Use The SAMC( Sec. 41- 1309. 1) permits Update the Zoning Code to extend Parking Exceptions change of use in tenant spaces under change of use parking exception to two thousand five hundred ( 2, 500) industrial properties along arterial streets square feet without requiring additional when converted to retail if retail parking and loading spaces, component is equal to or less than 50 percent the gross square footage of the
tenants ace Sec. 41- 1309. 1 .
Trash Bin The SAMC( Sec. 41- 623) provides Update the trash enclosure standards to Enclosures trash bin enclosure standards. align with CalGreen and SB 1383 However, standards have not been requirements and provide use and updated in some time and no longer maintenance standards( Sec. 41- 623). align with changes to state law related
to waste collection.
Urban Lot Splits and The City adopted its Urban Lot Split Provide clarity on the number of units Two- Unit and Two- Unit Development standards and affordability level required for each Developments ( SB ( Sec. 41- 2106 at seq.) in December of type of project/ product. Require all net 9) 2021 in response to California Senate new units created through provision of Bill 9, the California Housing the ordinance be affordable: rental Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1- 3 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 6 of '76 Page ID #: 72 ZOA No. 2022- 03: Zoning Code Amendments and Updates
January 17, 2023
Opportunity and More Efficiency products shall be affordable to very low HOME) Act. The intent was to require or low income households; for-sale all new units created through the products shall be affordable to moderate ordinance be made affordable. income households ( Sec. 41- 2109 and However, the adopted ordinance lacks Sec. 41- 2115).
clarity on the total number of affordable
units required and the affordability
levels.
Noxious Uses The SAMC. regulates industrial and 1. Create new" noxious uses" section to noxious land uses through permitting require approval of a conditional use them in industrial zoning districts. permit for industrial type uses located However, the SAMC does not provide within 500 feet of a sensitive land use additional regulation for uses that have that requires a permit to discharge air a regional, state, or federal permit to contaminants or process or store emit or store or process hazardous regulated chemicals or substances waste that are in close proximity to Sec. 41- 199. 4).
sensitive land uses. 2. Update the Non- Conforming section of the Zoning Code to require a
conditional use permit for noxious
uses whenever an existing nonconforming business changes ownership and requires a new
certificate of occupancy. Additionally,
require businesses with these types
of permits to remain in compliance
with applicable laws or lose their nonconforming status ( Sec. 41- 683 and Sec. 41- 683. 6).
Counseling Services The SAMC does not currently define Create" counseling services" definition in Definition counseling services. Division 2( Definitions), Article I of the Zoning Code Sec. 41- 44. 6 .
Medical Office- The SAMC does not currently define 1. Create" medical office" definition in Definition medical office. Division 2 ( Definitions), Article I of the Zoning Code( Sec. 41- 121).
2. Update the permitted uses sections
of the Professional( P), Community
Commercial( C1), Community
Commercial— Museum District( ClMD), Arterial Commercial ( C5), and South Main Street Commercial
District( C-SM) to consistently use
medical office."
Professional, The SAMC does not currently define 1. Create" professional, business, and Business, and professional, business, and administrative office" definition in Administrative Office administrative office. Division 2( Definitions), Article i of the Definition Zoning Code( Sec.41- 127. 5)
2. Update the permitted uses sections
of the Professional ( P), Community
Commercial( C1), Community
Commercial— Museum District( ClMD), Arterial Commercial( C5), and South Main Street Commercial
District C- SM to consistent) use
Case 8: 23- cv- 00504 Document 1.- 3 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 7 of 76 Page ID #: 73 ZOA No. 2022- 03: Zoning Code Amendments and Updates
January 17, 2023
professional, business, and
administrative office."
Electric Fences The SAMC is currently silent on electric 1. Create" electric fence" definition in fences. The SAMC neither defines nor Division 2( Definitions), Article l of the regulates electric fences, which have zoning Code( Sec. 41- 54. 5) become more widely used as a means 2. Add new section to regulate zones to secure property from theft and/ or and properties where electric fences vandalism.
are permitted ( M1 and M2, where
abutting a rail right- of-way) subject to
a minor exception Sec. 41- 610. 5 .
Light Processing The SAMC ( Sec. 41- 472 and Sec. 41- Amend Section 41- 1251 to explicitly list Facilities 472. 5) requires a conditional use and require a conditional use permit for permit for light processing facilities in light processing facilities, consistent the Light Industrial( M- 1) zoning with Section 41- 472 and Section 41- district. Section 41- 1251 ( Permits 472. 5.
required) in Article XIV. -- Recycling
Facilities does not explicitly state that
a conditional use permit is required
for a light processing facility.
Landscaping— The SAMC ( Sec. 41- 100 and Sec. 41- Amend Section 41- 100 and Section 41- Synthetic Turf 609) currently requires landscape 609 to permit use of synthetic turf for areas be maintained with live plant projects that are not subject to the material and other decorative Water Efficiency Landscape Standards, elements. The code is silent on provided they comply with landscape allowance of synthetic turf for projects guidelines and permitting requirements where the Water Efficiency established by the Director of the Landscape Standards do not apply. Planning and Building A enc .
Family Daycare Facilities
Under the California Child Day Care Facilities Act, the State Department of Social Services licenses and regulates family daycare homes. In Santa Ana, a small family daycare home, which may provide care for up to eight children, is considered a residential use of property for purposes of all local ordinances. Large family daycare homes, which provide care for up to 14 children, require approval of a permit.
Senate Bill (SB) 234, effective January 1, 2020, now requires a large family daycare facility to be treated as a residential use of property for purposes of all local ordinances. SB 234 also prevents local jurisdictions from requiring any form of a permit, license, tax, fee, or other clearance to operate a large day care facility on a residential property. Family daycare facilities must be allowed on any property where a residential use is allowed, including single- family residences, duplexes and triplexes, townhomes, and multiple-family dwellings ( apartments), according to Section 1596. 78 of the Health and Safety Code.
The text of various zoning district regulations in the Zoning Code currently require approval of a land use certificate (LUC) application and accompanying fee to operate a large family daycare facility. In addition, SAMC Section 41- 42. 5 contains a definition for" Child Care Facilities." The proposed ordinance would delete references to child care facilities in various Zoning Code sections where residential uses are permitted, and would create a new Section 41- 192. 6 allowing small and large family daycare as an accessory use to Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1.- 3 Filed 03I20/ 23 Page 8 of 76 Page ID#: 74 ZOA No. 2022- 03: Zoning Code Amendments and Updates
January 17, 2023
residential uses. The proposed ordinance would also create new definitions for" Family Daycare Facilities" and " Daycare Centers," and replace any reference to " Child Care Facilities" in the permitted uses sections in the commercial and industrial zoning districts with " Daycare Centers." The changes would update the Zoning Code to be consistent with state law.
Regional Planned Sign Programs
The Zoning Code currently affords regional commercial centers, automobile dealerships, and attractions flexibility with their on- premises signage without the need for approval of a variance application. Instead, SAMC Sec. 41- 885 provides for approval of a regional planned sign program ( RSPG) by the Planning Commission; the RSPG contains all location, design, and installation specifications for signage within the scope of a regional commercial centers, automobile dealerships, or attractions. Examples of such regional facilities in Santa Ana with approved RSPGs include MainPlace, Discovery Cube Orange County, McFadden Place, Hutton Centre, and Tom's Truck Center. These regional facilities are approved for a combination of wall signs, banners, monument ( freestanding) signs, mimetic signs, and digital signs for on- premises advertising.
Staff is proposing to amend SAMC Section 41- 885 to define and allow a " regional institution" to submit an application for an RSPG for staff review and subsequent approval by the Planning Commission. This amendment is a proactive response to the effects of the global Covid- 19 pandemic, during which many hospitals and institutions of higher learning began installing community- oriented signage to recognize the contributions of educational and hospital staff during a critical time. As with any other regional facility as defined by SAMC Section 41- 885, these types of facilities would seek Planning Commission approval of an RSPG before installing such signage, along with any other permanent advertising signage they may contemplate in the RSPG package.
Massage Establishments
On March 16, 2009, the City adopted Ordinance Amendment No. 2008- 02 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2008- 01 to amend Chapter 22 ( Massage Establishments) and Chapter 41 ( Zoning) of the SAMC to regulate massage establishments and massage technicians in response to concerns relating to the impacts of massage establishments and the potential establishment of new locations in the city. Past amendments to Chapter 41 included requirements for a CUP for massage establishments, an LUC for ancillary massage uses, implemented separation criteria similar to adult entertainment uses, and created operational standards specific to the massage use.
Subsequently, in September of 2009, California Senate Bill 731 ( SB 731) became effective, which restricted local governments' ability to regulate massage establishments and massage technicians. The passage of SB 731 exempted massage technicians that possessed a massage technician certificate issued by the California Massage Therapy Council ( CAMTC), a nonprofit public benefit corporation, from regulations and permit requirements that were previously adopted by the City. The new law required that Case 8: 23- cv-00504 Document 1.- 3 Filed 03/ 20/ 23 Page 9 of 76 Page ID #: 75 ZOA No. 2022- 03: Zoning Code Amendments and Updates
January 17, 2023