such authorities, as it may see fit;
f) Consider all matters that may be referred to it by the city council or the city manager and shall render its recommendations, counsel and advice in regards thereto;
g) Carry out those duties enumerated in chapter 30 of this Code regarding places of historical and architectural significance;
h) Advise and make recommendations to the city council on applications for properties to be included in financial incentive programs participated in by the city for the preservation of historic resources;
i) Advise and make recommendations to the city council and other city boards and commissions regarding historical projects and property; j) Recommend to the city council policies and regulations regarding the protection, reuse and rehabilitation of historical property;
k) Recommend to the city council programs for the protection, retention and use of historic resources including utilizing federal, state, local and/or private funding sources and mechanisms, such as Certified Local Government Program, Mills Act Contracts, and the state Historic Building Code;
l) Recommend to the city council programs that confer recognition upon the owners of designated historic resources; and
m) Encourage public understanding and involvement in historic and architectural heritage.
Section 8. That Chapter 30 (Places of Historical and Architectural Significance) be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 30-1. - Register of historical properties.
The planning commission may, by resolution and at a noticed public hearing, designate as historical property any building or part thereof, object, structure, or site having importance to the history or architecture of the city in accordance with the criteria set forth in section 30-2. The commission secretary shall maintain a register which shall consist of copies of each such resolution and which shall be known as the city register of historical properties. The planning commission may at any time repeal, revise, or modify any such resolution upon reconsideration of the historical or architectural importance of the places therein described.
City Council 20 – 5 7/7/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
Sec. 30-1.5. - Definitions.
Certificate of appropriateness means the method by which the planning commission approves modifications to a historic property pursuant to section 30-6.
Dangerous building shall have the same definition as the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings which may from time to time be amended.
Historic property shall include a building, structure, object or site designated as having historical significance and listed on the federal, state or local register of historical properties, as well as those contributing properties located in an historic district.
Local historic district means a collection or group of historic properties within a defined area.
Modification means any change, alteration, restoration, remodeling, rehabilitation, construction, or relocation of the physical exterior of a historic structure. Modification shall not include painting.
Register of historical properties means the official list of historic properties in the city.
Sec. 30-2. - Criteria for selection.
(a) Any person or group may request a building, or part thereof, structure, object or site, to be designated to be included on the city register of historical properties (called "register" in this section). The applicant must submit documentation that demonstrates how the nominated building, structure, object or site satisfies the criteria for designation. A building, structure, object, or site may be designated for inclusion on the register if the building, structure, object or site is fifty (50) or more years old and if the commission finds that one (1) or more of the following conditions are met:
(1) Buildings, structures or objects with distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or period, that exemplify a particular architectural style or design features;
(2) Works of notable architects, builders, or designers whose style influenced architectural development;
(3) Rare buildings, structures, or objects or original designs; (4) Buildings, structures, objects or sites of historical significance which include places:
a. Where important events occurred;
b. Associated with famous people, original settlers, renowned organizations and businesses;
c. Which were originally present when the city was founded; or City Council 20 – 6 7/7/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
d. That served as important centers for political, social, economic, or cultural activity.
(5) Sites of archaeological importance;
(6) Buildings or structures that were connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare.
(b) The owner of a property(s) must be notified of its nomination upon receipt of an application by the planning and building agency. Upon adoption and placement of the property on the register, the resolution of designation shall be recorded with the county recorder's office pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 5029, as it may be amended from time to time.
Sec. 30-2.1. - Criteria for selection; exceptions.
A building, structure, object or site less than fifty (50) years old may be nominated provided that it can be proven to be of exceptional significance as outlined in subsections 30-2(a)(1)—(6).
Sec. 30-2.2. - Categorization.
The planning commission shall, by resolution and at a duly noticed public hearing, place all buildings, structures, objects, or sites on the city register of historical properties in one (1) of the following categories based upon the criteria for each category:
(1) Landmark category.
a. The building, structure, object or site is on the national register or appears to be eligible to be placed on the register; or
b. The building, structure, object or site is on the state register or appears to be eligible to be placed on the register; or
c. The building, structure, object or site has an historical/cultural significance to the city; or
d. The building, structure, object or site has a unique architectural significance.
(2) Key category.
a. The building, structure, object or site has a distinctive architectural style and quality; or
b. The building, structure, object or site is characteristic of a significant period in the history of the city; or
c. The building, structure, object or site is associated with a significant person or event in the city.
(3) Contributive category. The building, structure, object or site contributes to the overall character and history of a neighborhood or district and is a good example of period architecture.
City Council 20 – 7 7/7/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
The planning commission may after a duly noticed public hearing revise, or modify any such categorization upon reconsideration of the historical or architectural importance of the places therein described.
Sec. 30-2.3. - Removal from the city register of historical properties. (a) Any owner of a historic property may apply to the city for removal from the city register of historical properties. The planning commission shall by adoption of a resolution, following a duly noticed public hearing, remove the historic property from the city register of historical properties if the historic property meets one or more of the following:
(1) The building, structure, object or site does not meet the criteria for being placed on the city register of historical properties; or
(2) Discovery of information subsequent to placement on the register of historical properties regarding the significance of the building, structure, object or site, such that the criteria for placement on the city register of historical properties is not met; or
(3) The building, structure, object or site has been substantially damaged or destroyed by a catastrophic event such that it no longer meets the criteria for placement on the city register of historical properties; or (4) There has been a loss of the integrity of the building, structure, object or site, provided the loss of integrity was not the result of any illegal act or willful neglect by the owner or agent of the owner; or
(5) The owner proves that he/she would have no economically viable use of the property unless the building, structure, object or site is removed from the register of historic properties.
(b) The planning commission shall give notice of its decision, which shall be final unless timely appealed pursuant to section 30-8.
Sec. 30-2.4. - Same—Filing fees.
Every application under this chapter to designate a building, or part thereof, structure, object or site for inclusion on the city register of historical properties or appeal to the city council shall be accompanied by a filing fee. No application shall be accepted for filing without the required fee, except that all governmental agencies are exempt from the fee requirement. The city council shall from time to time by resolution adopt a schedule of fees to be charged, a copy of which shall be maintained in the office of the planning department.
Sec. 30-3. - Application of state historical building code.
Any building or structure designated as having historical or architectural importance by inclusion in the city register of historical properties shall be deemed a "qualified historical building or structure" for purposes of applying the state historical building code, as set forth in Part 2.7 (commencing with Section 18950) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California and Part 8 of Title 24 of City Council 20 – 8 7/7/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
the California Administrative Code. The city's building official is authorized to apply the said state historical building code to any such building or structure.
Sec. 30-4. - Local historic districts.
(a) The planning commission, after public hearing noticed and held in the manner prescribed by Section 37628 of the Health and Safety Code of the state, may, recommend that the city council designate an area within the city as a local historic district.
(b) A local historic district shall be designated only if it meets one or more of the following standards:
(1) The area constitutes a distinct section of the city and has special character, historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest and value. (2) The area provides significant examples of architectural values of the past or landmarks in the history of architecture.
(3) The area serves as a reminder of past eras, events, or persons important in the history of the city, the county, the state or the United States of America or illustrates past living styles for future generations to observe, study, or inhabit. (4) The area is the site of a historically or culturally significant ground, garden, or object.
(c) The city council, after receiving the recommendation from the planning commission, may by resolution designate the recommended area as a local historic district. At the time of the creation of the local historic district, the city council may adopt design guidelines for the district.
Sec. 30-5. - Historical rehabilitation financing program.
The standards set forth in sections 30-2 and 30-4 shall constitute criteria for selection of historical properties eligible for financing and criteria for the selection of historical rehabilitation areas, pursuant to the provisions of the Marks Historical Rehabilitation Act of 1976, as set forth in Part 10 (commencing with Section 37600) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California, for the purposes of any historical rehabilitation financing program which may be undertaken pursuant to that act by the City of Santa Ana or the community redevelopment agency of the City of Santa Ana.
Sec. 30-6. - Modification of historic properties.
(a) No exterior physical modifications, other than those identified by the planning commission for administrative approval by city staff, shall be permitted with respect to an historic structure until the planning commission approves such request at a duly noticed public hearing and issues a certificate of appropriateness. The planning commission shall issue the certificate of appropriateness upon finding that the proposed modification(s) does not substantially change the character and integrity of the historic property. The minutes of the planning commission meeting shall serve as the official record.
City Council 20 – 9 7/7/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
(b) An application for exterior modification of a historic structure shall be accompanied, except for those subject to administrative approval by city staff pursuant to subsection (a), by payment of an application fee set in such amounts as shall be established by resolution of the city council. (c) The building official may determine a historic property is a dangerous building.
Modifications as determined necessary by the building official to correct the dangerous building shall not require a certificate of appropriateness. Modifications shall be consistent with the overall architectural design and historic character of the structure and blend in with the surrounding environment. (d) The planning commission may impose and/or recommend conditions of approval deemed reasonable and necessary on applications that are subject to review and approval or recommendation by the planning commission.
Sec. 30-7. - Demolition of historic properties.
(a) An application of intent to demolish an historic property shall be submitted to the planning and building agency. At a duly noticed public hearing, the planning commission must review all applications for demolition permits for historic properties. The commission shall investigate all feasible alternatives to demolition.
These alternatives include, but are not limited to:
(1) Seeking private citizens, local trusts, and other financial sources who may be willing to purchase the structure for restoration or relocation. (2) Publicizing the availability of the structure for purchase for restoration or relocation purposes.
(3) Exploring possible sites for relocation of the historic building if on-site preservation is not possible. Any structure relocated under this section shall not require a residential relocation permit, pursuant to section 41-620 of this Code.
(4) Suggesting to the city council that the city purchase the structure when private preservation or relocation is not feasible.
(b) All of the above items are to be completed within two hundred and forty (240) days from the date of application submittal. After two hundred and forty (240) days, or at the conclusion of the environmental review period, whichever is longer, a demolition permit must be issued. Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, the applicant shall provide, to the reasonable satisfaction of the commission, and at the applicant's sole cost, complete photo-documentation of archival quality and historical profile of the structure to be demolished, prior to the scheduling of the demolition.
(c) The building official may determine a historic property is a dangerous building.
Such determination allows the waiver of planning commission review and the required review period for demolition if the historic property is declared a dangerous building.
City Council 20 – 10 7/7/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
Sec. 30-8. - Appeals from decisions of planning commission. (a) An appeal from a decision or requirement of the planning commission may be made by any interested party, individual or group.
(b) Any appeal made under the terms of this section shall be made within ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision by the planning commission, and shall be accompanied by payment of an appeal fee set in such amounts as shall be established by resolution of the city council. Further, such appeal period shall end at 5:00 p.m. on the tenth calendar day following such date of the decision by the planning commission. If such tenth calendar day ends on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the ten-day period shall end at 5:00 p.m. on the next regular business day. The formal action by the planning commission shall become effective on the day following the first regularly scheduled council meeting after the ten-day appeal period, unless the city council, in compliance with section 41-643, section 41-644 or section 41-645, holds a public hearing on the matter, then the decision of the city council will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the city council.
(c) All appeals shall be in writing and on forms provided by the planning department and shall specify wherein there was any error of decision or requirement by the commission. Furthermore, a copy of such appeal shall be filed with the planning department and the city clerk.
(d) Upon receipt of such appeal, the planning department shall set the matter for hearing by the council.
(e) All appeals shall be heard in the same manner as prescribed for the original hearing.
(f) Upon filing of an appeal, the planning department shall forward to the city clerk a copy of the written findings, maps, papers and exhibits upon which the decision of the planning commission was based.
(g) The council may, after public hearing, affirm, reverse, change, or modify the original decision and may make any additional determination it shall consider appropriate within the limitations imposed by this chapter. Such decision shall be filed with the city clerk, and the city planning department; one (1) copy thereof shall be sent to the applicant.
Sec. 30-9—30-24. - Reserved.
Section 9. That Section 30-27 (Authority) of Division 1 of Chapter 30 shall be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 30-27. - Authority.
The planning commission reviews and forwards recommendations for historic property preservation agreements to the city council for consideration.
City Council 20 – 11 7/7/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
Section 10. That Section 33-185 of Article VII of Chapter 33 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 33-185 – Street tree species to be planted.
The following list constitutes the official street tree species for the City of Santa Ana. Species other than those included in this list may be planted as street trees with the consent from the executive director of public works.
COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME
CATEGORY I* •Queen Palm
•Crape Myrtle
•Arecastrum
•romanzoffianum
•Lagerstroemia indica
CATEGORY II** •Australian Willow
•New Zealand Christmas
•Bradford Pear
•Lavender Bloom
•Geijera parviflora
•Metorsiderso excelsus
•Pyrus calleryanan
•Tabebuia ipe
CATEGORY III† •Peppermint Tree
•Bottle Tree
•Modesto Ash
•Jacaranda
•Magnolia-Samuel
•Summers
•Canary Island Pine
•Sycamore, London
•Plane
•Sycamore, California
•Oaks, Holly
•Oaks, Coastal Live Oak
•Brisbane Box
•Gold Medallion Tree
•Agonis flexuosa
•Brachychiton populneus
•Fraxinus velutina
•Jacaranda mimosifolia
•Magnolia grandiflora
•Pinus canariensis
•Platanus acerifolia
•Platanus racemosa
•Quercus ilex
•Quercus agrifolia
•Tristania conferta
•Cassia leptophylla
CATEGORY IV‡ •Camphor Trees
•Tulip Tree
•Chinese Elm
•Cinnamomum camphora
•Liriodenfron Tulipifera
•Ulmus Parvifolia
* 2½—4 Foot Parkways
** 4—5 Foot Parkways
† 5—8 Foot Parkways
‡ 8 Foot or Larger Parkways
Section 11. That Section 41-653 of Division 1 of Article V of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to read, in its entirety:
City Council 20 – 12 7/7/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
Sec. 41-653. - Same—Review.
(a) Executive director review. An application for reasonable accommodation shall be reviewed by the executive director of the planning and building agency, or his or her designee, as appropriate.
(b) Decision. Within sixty (60) days of acceptance of the application as complete, the executive director shall issue a written decision to grant, grant with modifications, or deny an application for reasonable accommodation in accordance with section 41-654 and shall notify the applicant of the decision. The written decision shall explain in detail the basis of the decision, including the executive director's findings on the factors stated in section 41-654. If necessary to reach a determination on the request for reasonable accommodation, the executive director may request additional information from the applicant consistent with the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, specifying in detail the information that is required. If a request for additional information is made, the sixty-day period to issue a decision is stayed until the applicant responds to the request.
(c) Referral to other reviewing authority. The executive director shall have the authority, upon his or her sole discretion, to refer any reasonable accommodation application to any other reviewing authority, including, but not limited to, the planning commission or the zoning administrator to review the reasonable accommodation application and make a determination on the same in accordance with the applicable sections.
Section 12. That Table 1A of Division 1 of Article XIX of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code be amended to read as follows:
City Council 20 – 13 7/7/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
Section 13. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or 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 validity of the remaining 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 or phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 14. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.
City Council 20 – 14 7/7/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX
Section 15. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law.
ADOPTED this day of July, 2026.
__________________________
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:________________________
Laura A. Rossini
Chief Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, JENNIFER L. HALL, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NS-XXXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on July ____, 2026.
Date:
Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
City Council 20 – 15 7/7/2026
City Clerk’s Office
www.santa-ana.org/cityclerk
Item # 21
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
July 7, 2026
TOPIC: Voting Delegate for Cal Cities 2026 Annual Conference General Assembly
AGENDA TITLE
Designate a Voting Delegate and up to Two Alternates for League of California Cities (Cal Cities) 2026 Annual Conference General Assembly
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates for the Cal Cities Annual Conference General Assembly on Friday, September 25, 2026.
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No
DISCUSSION
The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) 2026 Annual Conference and Expo is scheduled to take place in Anaheim, California, September 23 – 25, 2026. Of particular significance at the conference is the General Assembly Meeting, where Cal Cities provides member cities, like the City of Santa Ana, an opportunity to consider and act on resolutions that establish Cal Cities policy.
Cal Cities bylaws indicate that each city is entitled to one vote to take a position on matters affecting municipal or Cal Cities policy. To expedite the conduct of business, every city is required to designate a voting representative and up to two alternates who will represent the City at the League General Assembly (Exhibit 1). These designations must be made by City Council action prior to September 1, 2026.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
EXHIBIT(S)
1. League of California Cities Correspondence – Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates
City Council 21 – 1 7/7/2026
Voting Delegate for Cal Cities 2026 Annual Conference General Assembly July 7, 2026
Submitted By: Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk
Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
City Council 21 – 2 7/7/2026
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: Wednesday, May 13, 2026
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 23-25, 2026 Anaheim Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.
Taking place on Friday, Sept. 25, 2026 the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.
To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.
Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.
Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.
Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.
Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration opens June 2.
For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and Council Action Advised by September 1, 2026
City Council 21 – 3 7/7/2026
alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.
Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.
Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.
Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Anaheim Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Sept. 23, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Sept. 24, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Sept. 25, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.
The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.
Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.
Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Tuesday, Sept. 1. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].
Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly City Council 21 – 4 7/7/2026
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines
1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.
2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.
3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.
4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.
5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.
6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.
City Council 21 – 5 7/7/2026
Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.
How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.
The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.
The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.
Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.
Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.
Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.
Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.
The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.
Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.
Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.
During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.
Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.
For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.
General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions C City Council ommittee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). 21 – 6 7/7/2026 City Manager’s Office
www.santa-ana.org/cm
Item # 22
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
July 7, 2026
TOPIC: Consider Ballot Measure to Remove Sunset on Local Sales Tax
AGENDA TITLE
Consider Ballot Measure to Remove Sunset on Local Sales Tax
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Adopt a Resolution calling for the placement of a measure on the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election ballot to remove the rate reduction and sunset on the local general sales transactions measure in Santa Ana.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA GIVING NOTICE OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026 AND CALLING FOR THE PLACEMENT ON THE BALLOT OF A
MEASURE FOR SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF A
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LOCAL GENERAL
TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX TO REMOVE THE RATE REDUCTION AND
THE SUNSET PROVISION
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing written arguments for or against the abovereferenced measure.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AUTHORIZING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FOR THE BALLOT MEASURE SUBMITTED FOR THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION REGARDING AMENDING THE LOCAL
GENERAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX TO REMOVE THE RATE
REDUCTION AND THE SUNSET PROVISION
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No
DISCUSSION
On November 6, 2018, the City’s voters approved Measure X to impose a local 1.5-cent transactions and use tax (referred to as local sales tax) which became effective April 1, City Council 22 – 1 7/7/2026
Consider Ballot Measure to Remove Sunset on Local Sales Tax July 7, 2026
2019. The voter-approved local sales tax Ordinance includes a rate decrease to 1-cent on April 1, 2029, and a complete sunset on April 1, 2039.
Annual local sales tax collection peaked at $86.8 million in FY22-23 and has been decreasing towards an expected collection of $82.8 million in FY25-26. Local sales tax has funded park maintenance, graffiti removal, pothole repairs, 911 response, homelessness mitigation, City streets and sidewalks repairs, and much more. Local sales tax is an important revenue source for the City, as it currently accounts for 20% of the General Fund budget.
There are 3 other cities in Orange County with a local sales tax add-on of 1.50% resulting in a total 9.25% sales tax rate: Los Alamitos (no sunset), Seal Beach (no sunset), and Westminster (1.00% sunsets in 2043 and 0.50% has no sunset).
Cities in Los Angeles County have much higher sales tax rates, as the base countywide rate is 9.75%. Examples of cities with high rates include Long Beach (10.50%), Pasadena (10.50%), Santa Monica (10.75%), and Torrance (10.25%).
On March 17, 2026, City Council approved the staff recommendation to prepare public information materials regarding local sales tax, develop a November 2026 ballot measure to eliminate the local sales tax rate reduction and sunset, and to conduct a tracking survey.
The City’s survey and ballot measure consultant worked with staff to prepare public information materials available in three languages on the City’s website at:
https://www.santa-ana.org/localfunding/.
The tracking survey was conducted at the end of May with 508 completed surveys. The complete report is attached at Exhibit 3. Tracking-survey results vs. the December survey results follow.
December 2025 Survey Tracking Survey
Initial ballot test 64% definitely or probably
yes
64% definitely or probably
yes
After presenting positive
arguments, ballot retest
67% definitely or probably
yes
64% definitely or probably
yes
After presenting negative
arguments, ballot retest
63% definitely or probably
yes
61% definitely or probably
yes
A resolution with the proposed November 2026 ballot measure and Ordinance is attached to this staff report as Exhibit 1.
The proposed November 2026 ballot measure to maintain the 1.5% local sales tax rate permanently requires a simple majority vote to pass.
City Council 22 – 2 7/7/2026
Consider Ballot Measure to Remove Sunset on Local Sales Tax July 7, 2026
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the proposed Resolution to ask Santa Ana voters to decide whether the rate reduction and sunset should be eliminated from the local sales tax.
Additionally, Elections Code Section 9280 provides that the legislative body may direct the city elections official to transmit a copy of the Measure to the city attorney. The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the Measure. The analysis shall be printed preceding the arguments for and against the Measure. The analysis shall not exceed 500 words in length.
Pursuant to the requirements at Section 9282 of the California Elections Code, the legislative body may authorize any member(s) of the City Council to write arguments for or against any measure. In addition, Elections Code Section 9285 provides that the author or a majority of the authors of an argument relating to the Measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument or may authorize in writing another person or persons to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument. Any rebuttal statement shall be filed no later than ten (10) days after the final filing date for the primary argument.
The second resolution provides City Council the ability to designate a member or members to author and file an argument in favor or against the Measure on behalf of the City Council. Arguments will be due no later than 5:00 P.M. on Monday, July 20, 2026. Rebuttal arguments will be due no later than 5:00 P.M. on Thursday, July 30, 2026.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated election cost for the proposed ballot measure is up to $17,000. If City Council approves the staff recommendation, FY25-26 expenditure savings will be recommended for carryover to FY26-27 to fund the election cost at 01107031-62300.
EXHIBIT(S)
1. Proposed Resolution to Place Measure on Ballot
2. Proposed Resolution Authorizing Written Arguments
3. True North Summary Report for Tracking Survey dated June 2026 Submitted By: Kathryn Downs, Assistant City Manager
Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
City Council 22 – 3 7/7/2026
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA GIVING
NOTICE OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026 AND CALLING FOR THE PLACEMENT ON
THE BALLOT OF A MEASURE FOR SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF
A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LOCAL GENERAL TRANSACTIONS
AND USE TAX TO REMOVE THE RATE REDUCTION AND THE
SUNSET PROVISION
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9222, the City Council has authority to place measures on the ballot to be considered at a General Municipal Election; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the law of the State of California, the City Council has, by Resolution No. 2026-021, called and ordered to be held in the City of Santa Ana, California, on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, a General Municipal Election; and WHEREAS, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285.9 authorizes the City of Santa Ana (“City”), subject to approval by a majority vote of the qualified voters of the City voting in an election on the issue, to levy a transactions and use tax pursuant to the Transactions and Use Tax Law at a rate of 0.125% or any multiple thereof for general purposes and projects; and
WHEREAS, Section 2(b) of Article XIII C of the California Constitution, added by Proposition 218 effective November, 1996, requires that the measure proposing a general tax be submitted to the voters at an election consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government; and
WHEREAS, On November 6, 2018, Santa Ana voters approved Measure X to impose a local transactions and use tax rate of 1.5% that became effective on April 1, 2019, decreasing to 1.0% on April 1, 2029, and fully sunsetting on April 1, 2039; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana desires to ask its voters to make the local transactions and use tax permanent at 1.5%, with no rate reductions, to preserve service levels; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Constitution Article XIII C, Section 2 and Elections Code Section 10201, the City has determined to submit a proposition to the voters at the next regular election to amend the previously enacted ordinance approved by the voters to remove the rate reduction from 1.5% to 1% which was to be effective April 1, 2029 and to remove the sunset provision (April 1, 2039) from the local transactions and use tax.
City Council 22 – 4 7/7/2026
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference.
Section 2. The California Elections Code directs that the City Council approve the form of the ballot question to be submitted to the voters and the City Council of the City of Santa Ana desires, on its own motion, to submit to the voters of the City the following question at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026 regarding a proposed amendment to the previously adopted Transactions and Use Tax in Chapter 35 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code:
MEASURE #___: SANTA ANA STREETS, PUBLIC SAFETY,
ESSENTIAL CITY SERVICES MEASURE
To maintain city services, such as fixing potholes; keeping streets, sidewalks, parks, and playgrounds safe and clean; removing graffiti and litter; providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 911 emergency response, shall City of Santa Ana’s ordinance be amended to maintain the 1.5 cent sales tax without sunset providing approximately $84,000,000 annually for services until ended by voters, with independent audits, resident oversight, and all money locally controlled?
Yes
No
Section 3. That the text of the Ordinance amendment to be submitted to the voters is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference ("Ordinance").
Section 4. Should said measure be approved by the requisite vote, a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the Ordinance amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference shall be enacted.
Section 5. That pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280, the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Ordinance to the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the Ordinance which shall not exceed 500 words in length. The impartial analysis shall show the effect of the Ordinance on existing law and the operation of the Ordinance. It shall also include a statement indicating whether the Ordinance was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the City Council. The impartial analysis shall be filed no later than the deadline for direct arguments.
City Council 22 – 5 7/7/2026
Section 6. In accordance with Sections 10002 and 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of Orange County is hereby requested to consent to the Registrar of Voters rendering election services to the City as may be requested by the City Clerk of said City, the County of Orange to be reimbursed in full for such services as are performed. The Board of Supervisors of Orange County is also requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of the General Election with any other election occurring on November 3, 2026, and the City hereby consents to any such consolidation and to hold and conduct the consolidated election in the manner prescribed in Election Code Section 10418.
Section 7. The election services which the City requests of the Registrar of Voters, or such other official as may be appropriate to perform, and which such officer is hereby authorized and directed to perform if the said Board of Supervisors consents, include: the preparation, printing, and mailing of sample ballots and voter information guides; the establishment or appointment of precincts, voting centers, and election officers; opening and closing of voting centers, and making such publications as are required by law in connection therewith; the furnishing of ballots, voting booths, and other necessary supplies or materials for voting centers; the canvassing of the returns of the election and the furnishing of the results of such canvassing to the City Clerk; and the performance of such other election services as may be requested by said City Clerk.
Section 8. That the polls for the election shall be open at seven o’clock a.m. on the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o'clock p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10242 and Section 14212, except as provided in California Elections Code Section 14401 or any other provision of law. The precincts, ballot drop box locations and hours of operations, vote center locations and hours of operations, vote-by-mail procedures and timing, and election officers, an all other persons and procedures for the General Municipal Election shall be the same as those utilized by the County of Orange.
Section 9. All persons qualified to vote at municipal elections in the City on the day of the election herein provided for shall be qualified to vote on the Ordinance hereby submitted at the General Municipal Election.
Section 10. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding general municipal elections in the City.
Section 11. Notice of the time and place of holding the General Municipal Election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in the time, form and manner as required by law.
Section 12. The City Clerk shall receive the canvass as it pertains to the General Municipal Election, and shall certify the results to this City Council, as required by law.
City Council 22 – 6 7/7/2026
Section 13. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of any other provision or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or provision thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or provisions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 14. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9295, this Resolution and the attached Ordinance will be available for public examination for no fewer than ten (10) calendar days prior to being submitted for printing in the voter information guide.
Section 15. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by a majority of the City Council.
Section 16. The City Clerk of the City of Santa Ana is hereby directed to certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors of Orange County and the Registrar of Voters of Orange County at least eighty-eight (88) days before the date of the election.
ADOPTED this ____ day of July, 2026.
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:______________________
Laura A. Rossini
Chief Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers ___________________________________ NOES: Councilmembers ___________________________________ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers ___________________________________ ABSENT: Councilmembers ___________________________________ City Council 22 – 7 7/7/2026
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, JENNIFER L. HALL, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2026-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on July ___, 2026.
Date: _____________________ _____________________________________ Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk, Elections Official
City of Santa Ana
City Council 22 – 8 7/7/2026
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. NS--XXXX
MEASURE “___”
AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AMENDING PORTIONS OF ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 35
OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO
A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX
ALREADY ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION The People of the City of Santa Ana do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Authority. The People of the City of Santa Ana hereby adopt this ordinance amending portions of Article VII of Chapter 35 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code modifying a previously adopted Transactions and Use Tax in accordance with the authority granted to cities by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution and Section 7285.9 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (underlined language is added and stricken language is deleted in strikethrough.)
SECTION 2. Section 35-204 of Article VII of Chapter 35 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 35-204. - Imposition of transactions and use tax—Rate.
For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory of the city at the rate of one and one half cents (1.5) of any gross receipts of the retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in the city on and after the operative date of this article until March 31, 2029 and then at the rate of one cent (1) until March 31, 2039.
SECTION 3. Section 35-206 of Article VII of Chapter 35 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 35-206. - Imposition of use tax—Use tax rate.
An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use, or other consumption in the city of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on or after the operative date of this article, at the rate of one and one-half cents (1.5) of the sales price of the property subject to the tax until March 31, 2029 and then at the rate of one cent (1) of the sales price of the property subject to the tax until March 31, 2039. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.
City Council 22 – 9 7/7/2026
SECTION 4. Section 35-213 of Article VII of Chapter 35 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 35-213. –Reserved. Termination.
The authority set forth in this Article VII to impose a retail transactions and use tax shall continue until March 31, 2039.
SECTION 5. Section 35-217 of Article VII of Chapter 35 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 35-217. – Reserved. Sunset provision.
On March 31, 2029, the rate of one and one half cents (1.5) will be reduced to one cent (1) until March 31, 2039 for a total of twenty (20) years.
SECTION 6. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance.
The People of the City of Santa Ana hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance be enforced.
SECTION 7. Pursuant to California Elections Code section 9222, this Ordinance must be approved by a majority of the eligible voters of the City of Santa Ana voting at the General Municipal Election of November 3, 2026.
SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall become effective ten days (10) days after the City Council has certified the results of the General Municipal Election by resolutions.
SECTION 9. Following the City Clerk’s certification that the citizens of Santa Ana have approved this Ordinance, the Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be entered in the book or original ordinances of said City; and shall cause the same, or a summary thereof, to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the People of the City of Santa Ana this 3rd day of November, 2026.
________________________________
Mayor
City Council 22 – 10 7/7/2026
ATTEST:
____________________________
City Clerk
City Council 22 – 11 7/7/2026
Resolution 2026-XXX
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AUTHORIZING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FOR
THE BALLOT MEASURE SUBMITTED FOR THE
NOVEMBER 3, 2026 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
REGARDING AMENDING THE LOCAL GENERAL
TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX TO REMOVE THE RATE
REDUCTION AND THE SUNSET PROVISION
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election of the City of Santa Ana will be held on November 3, 2026, at which there will be submitted to the qualified electors of the City a ballot measure related to whether to amend the local general transactions and use tax to remove the rate reduction and the sunset provision (“the Measure”); WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements at Section 9282 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the legislative body may authorize any member(s) of the City Council to write arguments for or against any measure; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285, the author or a majority of the authors of an argument relating to the Measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument or may authorize in writing another person or persons to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument. Any rebuttal statement shall be filed ten (10) days after the primary argument.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, declares, and determines that, to the extent the City Council determines that, members of the City Council would like to author an argument in favor or against the Measure, the following member(s) of its body are authorized to file written arguments in favor of or against the Measure:
Member Name In Favor: Against:
1. 2.
3. Section 2. The City Council, as the legislative body of the City of Santa Ana, hereby authorizes the City Clerk to give preference and priority to any member or members of the City Council (up to five members), then to voters as set forth in California Elections Code Section 9287, to file a written argument in favor of or against the Measure set forth above, and to change said argument until and including Monday, July 20, 2026, after which no arguments for or against said City Measure may be submitted. Arguments in favor of or against the measure shall not exceed 300 words.
City Council 22 – 12 7/7/2026
Resolution 2026-XXX
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana also finds that pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285, a rebuttal statement may be filed not to exceed 250 words until and including Thursday, July 30, 2026.
Section 4. The argument(s) shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument, The arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement to be filed by the authors of the argument as provided for in Elections Code Section 9600.
Section 5. The City Council for the City of Santa Ana finds that if more than one argument for or against the measure is submitted to the City Clerk within the time prescribed, the City Clerk shall give preference and priority, in the order set forth in Elections Code Section 9287, to the arguments in favor/against submitted by 1) the legislative body, or member(s) of the legislative body authorized by that body, 2) bona fide associations of citizens, 3) individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure.
Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution.
ADOPTED this ____ day of July, 2026.
__________________________
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
By: ____________________________
Laura A. Rossini
Chief Assistant City Attorney
City Council 22 – 13 7/7/2026
Resolution 2026-XXX
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, JENNIFER L. HALL, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Resolution No. 2026-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on July ___, 2026.
Date: _____________________
Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk, Elections Official
City of Santa Ana
City Council 22 – 14 7/7/2026
City Council 22 – 15 7/7/2026
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City Council 22 – 16 7/7/2026
Table of Contents
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Quality of Life & City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Changes to Improve Santa Ana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Overall Performance Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Reasons For Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Projects & Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Service Ratings by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Top Positive Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Top Negative Arguments by Initial Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Change in Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Programming, Pre-Test & Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Statistical Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Recruiting & Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 City Council 22 – 17 7/7/2026
List of Tables
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 2 Top Projects & Services by Position at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 3 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 4 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 5 Negative Argument by Position at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 6 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 7 Movement Between Initial & Final Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 8 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 City Council 22 – 18 7/7/2026
List of Figures
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quality of Life by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Years in Santa Ana, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . 7 Figure 3 Quality of Life by Age, Survey Language & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 4 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction by Years in Santa Ana, Child in Hsld & Quality of Life . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 7 Overall Satisfaction by Homeowner on Voter File, Age, Survey Language & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 8 Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 9 Reasons for not Supporting Measure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 10 Projects & Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 11 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 12 Interim Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 13 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 14 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 15 Margin of Error @ 95% Confidence Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 City Council 22 – 19 7/7/2026
Introduction
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I NTRODUCTION
Incorporated in 1886, the City of Santa Ana is Orange County’s second largest city with more than 60 distinct neighborhoods. Currently home to a diverse population of 316,188 residents1, the City has a dedicated team of full-time and part-time employees that provide a full suite of services to residents, visitors, and local businesses.
To help keep Santa Ana safe, clean, and well-maintained, in 2018 voters approved a 1.5 cent local sales tax (Measure X) to maintain funding for city services, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, parks and public facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, fixing potholes, removing graffiti/litter, and providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 911 emergency response. Since its inception, every dime raised by the sales tax has been reinvested back into the community for these purposes. Unless renewed by voters, the local sales tax will be reduced by 0.5 cent in 2029, which will reduce funding for essential city services in Santa Ana by more than $25 million annually.
MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of this tracking survey was to produce an unbiased, statistically reliable, up-to-date evaluation of voters' interest in renewing the Measure X sales tax at the current rate (no increase) to continue funding for essential city services. Additionally, should the City decide to move forward with a renewal measure for the November 2026 ballot, the survey can guide how best to structure the measure so it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs. Specifically, the study was designed to:
• Gauge support in the current environment for renewing the Measure X sales tax to continue funding general municipal services;
• Identify the types of services voters are most interested in funding, should the measure pass;
• Expose voters to arguments in favor of, and against, the proposed tax measure to assess how information affects support for the measure; and
• Estimate support for the measure once voters are presented with the types of information they will likely be exposed to during an election cycle.
It is important to note at the outset that voters’ opinions about tax measures are often somewhat fluid, especially when the amount of information they initially have about a measure is limited. How voters think and feel about a measure today may not be the same way they think and feel once they have had a chance to hear more information about the measure during the election cycle. Accordingly, to accurately assess the feasibility of renewing a local sales tax to fund municipal services, it was important that in addition to measuring current opinions about the measure (Question 5), the survey expose respondents to the types of information voters are likely to encounter during an election cycle, including arguments in favor of (Question 8) and opposed to (Question 10) the measure, and gauge how this type of information ultimately impacts their voting decision (Questions 9 & 11).
1. Source: US Census 2024 ACS 1-Year Estimate.
City Council 22 – 20 7/7/2026
Introduction
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY For a full discussion of the research methods and techniques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 27. In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 508 voters in the City of Santa Ana who are likely to participate in the November 2026 election. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered in English, Spanish and Vietnamese between May 26 and June 1, 2026, the average interview lasted 16 minutes.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.
For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It provides a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in a Question & Answer format. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 30), and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks the City of Santa Ana for the opportunity to assist the City in this important effort. The collective expertise, local knowledge, and insight provided by city staff and representatives improved the overall quality of the research presented here. A special thanks also to Charles Heath (TeamCivX) for contributing to the design of the survey.
DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of Santa Ana. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public and private agencies with a clear understanding of the values, opinions, priorities, and concerns of their residents, voters, and customers. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, establishing fiscal priorities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.
During their careers, True North’s Principals (Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarles) have designed and conducted over 1,500 survey research studies for public agencies, including more than 500 revenue measure feasibility studies. Of the measures that have gone to ballot based on True North’s recommendation, 93% have been successful. In total, the research that True North has conducted has led to over $42 billion in voter-approved local revenue measures.
City Council 22 – 21 7/7/2026
Key Findings
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this tracking survey was designed to provide the City of Santa Ana with an up-to-date, statistically reliable understanding of voters’ interest in renewing the Measure X sales tax at the current rate to continue funding public safety, streets and infrastructure, and other essential city services. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer some of the key questions that motivated the research. The following conclusions are based on True North’s and TeamCivX’s interpretations of the survey results and the firms’ collective experience conducting revenue measure studies for public agencies throughout the State.
Does a Measure X
renewal still appear feasible for the November
2026 ballot?
Yes. Santa Ana voters value the services they receive from the City, but continue to see opportunities to improve the quality of life in Santa Ana by addressing homelessness, improving public safety, and improving the maintenance of city streets and infrastructure. Together, these sentiments translate into strong natural support (64%) for renewing the Measure X sales tax at the current 1.5 cent rate to fund general city services, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, parks and public facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, fixing potholes, removing graffiti/litter, and providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 911 emergency response. Moreover, despite the recent war in Iran, spiking fuel prices, and consumer sentiment reaching a record low in the past month, natural support for the proposed sales tax has remained steady at 64%, unchanged from the level recorded in the baseline survey conducted in December 2025.
The results of this tracking survey indicate that a Measure X renewal continues to be feasible for the November 2026 ballot provided that it maintains the existing tax rate (no increase), focuses on the projects and services that voters identify as their priorities, and is accompanied by robust community/opinion leader engagement, education, and communication (more on this below).
Having stated that a sales tax measure appears feasible, it is important to note that the measure’s prospects will be shaped by external factors (not within the City’s or an independent campaign’s control) and that a recommendation to place the measure on the November 2026 ballot comes with several qualifications and conditions. Indeed, although the results are promising, all revenue measures must overcome challenges prior to being successful. The proposed measure is no exception. The following paragraphs discuss some of the challenges and the next steps that True North and TeamCivX recommend.
City Council 22 – 22 7/7/2026
Key Findings
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Which services do Santa
Ana voters view as priorities?
A general tax is “any tax imposed for general governmental purposes”2 and is distinguished from a special tax in that the funds raised by a general tax are not earmarked for any specific purpose(s). Thus, a general tax provides a municipality with a great deal of flexibility with respect to what is funded by the measure on a year-to-year basis.
Although the Santa Ana City Council would have the discretion to decide how to spend the revenues, the survey results indicate that voters are primarily interested in using the proceeds to fund public works and public safety, including fixing potholes and paving/maintaining city streets (88% strongly or somewhat favor), repairing infrastructure including storm drains, bridges, sidewalks, and public facilities (87%), keeping parks and playgrounds safe, clean, and well-maintained (86%), removing graffiti and cleaning up piles of trash and litter along streets, sidewalks, and in public areas (85%), providing fire protection and paramedic services (83%), and providing quick responses to 911 emergencies (82%).
How might a public
information campaign
affect support for the
proposed measure?
As noted in the body of this report, individuals’ opinions about revenue measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information presented to the public on a measure has been limited. Thus, in addition to measuring current support for the measure, one of the goals of this study was to explore how the introduction of additional information about the measure may affect voters’ opinions about the proposal.
It is clear from the survey results that some voters’ opinions about the proposed measure are somewhat sensitive to the nature—and amount— of information that they have about the measure. Information about the specific services that could be funded by the sales tax, as well as arguments in favor of the measure, were found by many voters to be compelling reasons to support the measure. However, voters also exhibited sensitivity to opposition arguments, which effectively cooled support for the proposed measure down to 61% at the Final Ballot Test. There is also a risk that some voters could be swayed by hyper-partisan campaigning during the 2026 election cycle. Accordingly, one of the keys to building and sustaining support for the measure will be the presence of an effective, well-organized public outreach effort, as well as an independent campaign that focuses on the need for the measure as well as the many benefits that it will bring.
How might changes to
the economic or political climate alter support
for the measure?
A survey is a snapshot in time—which means the results of this study and the conclusions noted above must be viewed in light of the current economic and political climates. On the one hand, this should provide some reassurances to the reader that the proposed Measure X renewal is feasible for the November 2026 ballot. Even in a national environment marred by economic uncertainty, political instability, concerns about
2. Section 1, Article XIIIC, California Constitution.
City Council 22 – 23 7/7/2026
Key Findings
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 war, tariffs, and inflation, rising cost-of-living pressures, consumer sentiment reaching record lows, and broader skepticism about government spending, 64% of voters were supportive of the proposed measure on the natural, which is approximately 14 percentage points above the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage.
On the other hand, the months leading up to the November 2026 election are likely to be punctuated with significant events on the economic and political fronts, both domestically and internationally. Exactly how these events unfold and may shape voters’ opinions remains to be seen.
Should the economy and/or political climate improve, support for the measure could increase. Conversely, negative economic and/or political developments (including escalation of the war in Iran, sustained high fuel prices, local opposition, and devolving into a hyper-partisan environment), skewed voter turnout, and/or competing measures could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in this study.
City Council 22 – 24 7/7/2026
Quality of Life & City Services
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Q UALITY OF L IFE & C ITY S ERVICES
The opening section of the survey was designed to gauge voters’ opinions regarding the quality of life in Santa Ana, their ideas for how it can be improved, as well as their assessment of the City’s performance in providing municipal services.
QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, voters were asked to rate the quality of life in the City of Santa Ana using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, 45% voters shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Santa Ana, with 5% reporting it is excellent and 40% stating it is good. Approximately 38% of voters surveyed rated the quality of life in the City as fair, whereas 15% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in Santa Ana and 2% were unsure or unwilling to answer the question.
Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in Santa Ana? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE BY STUDY YEAR Figures 2 and 3 on the next page show how ratings of the quality of life in the City of Santa Ana varied by length of residence, presence of a child in the household, homeownership status, age, survey language, and gender. When compared to their respective counterparts, positive quality of life ratings (excellent and good) were highest among voters who have lived in the City less than 5 years or for 10-14 years, and seniors (age 65 or older). Ratings were generally consistent by home ownership status, whether there was a child in the household, and gender.
Excellent
5.2 Good
40.2 Fair
38.4 Poor
9.3 Very poor
5.2 Not sure
1.2 Prefer not to
answer
0.5 City Council 22 – 25 7/7/2026
Quality of Life & City Services
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN SANTA ANA, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS FIGURE 3 QUALITY OF LIFE BY AGE, SURVEY LANGUAGE & GENDER CHANGES TO IMPROVE SANTA ANA The next question in this series asked voters to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make Santa Ana a better place to live, now and in the future. Question 3 was posed in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 4 on the next page.
5.3 5.7 4.7
41.9 40.8 38.8 41.4
4.7 7.3 5.0
Excellent
6.9 5.7
38.3 43.9
39.5 Good
45.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Yes No Yes No Years in Santa Ana (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q12) Homeowner on Voter File % Respondents
3.4 4.6 5.1 7.2 3.5
53.4 40.7 41.8
26.5 39.6
42.3 16.0
Excellent
5.5 4.8 8.9 4.7
Good
35.5 46.2
31.1 31.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older English Spanish Vietnamese Male Female Age Survey Language Gender
% Respondents
City Council 22 – 26 7/7/2026
Quality of Life & City Services
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 3 If the city government could change one thing to make Santa Ana a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 4 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY Among specific changes desired, addressing homelessness (20%) and improving public safety (16%) were the most common, followed by cleaning up/beautifying the city (9%), reducing traffic congestion (9%), and improving roads/infrastructure (8%). Less than one-in-ten respondents could not think of a change to Santa Ana that they desired (7%) or stated flatly that no changes are needed/everything is fine (1.5%).
3 Given the purpose of this study, it is instructive that many respondents mentioned an issue (homelessness, public safety, streets/infrastructure, etc.) that had a direct nexus to the proposed measure.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING The final question in this series asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Santa Ana is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City. As shown in Figure 5 on the next page, just shy of six-in-ten voters surveyed indicated that they were satisfied with the City of Santa Ana’s efforts to provide municipal services, with 13% saying they were very satisfied and 46% somewhat satisfied. Approximately 35% reported that they were dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance, whereas 7% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion.
3. The latter category is not shown in the graphic since it is below 1.6%.
20.3 15.6
8.7 8.6
8.1 7.0
6.1 5.8
5.1 5.1
4.5 4.3
3.6 3.5
3.1 2.8
2.1 1.9
1.6 1.6
5.1 4.4
0 5 10 15 20 25
Address homeless issues
Improve public safety
Clean up, beautify City (graffiti, landscaping)
Reduce traffic congestion
Improve infrastructure, roads
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Address parking issues
Enforce traffic laws
Improve City-resident communication
Provide more affordable housing
Improve parks, rec facilities
Enforce City codes
Provide more police presence, response
Address rent control issues
Reduce taxes, fees
Finish construction faster
Improve public transportation
Improve fiscal management, budget
Ban illegal fireworks
Reduce police funding
Address mental health issues
Improve street lighting
% Respondents
City Council 22 – 27 7/7/2026
Quality of Life & City Services
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 4 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Santa Ana is doing to provide city services? FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION For the interested reader, figures 6 and 7 display how the percentage of respondents satisfied with the City’s overall performance varied across demographic subgroups. When compared to their respective counterparts, overall positive satisfaction ratings (very and somewhat satisfied) were highest among voters who have lived in the City between 5-9 years, those who rated the quality of life in Santa Ana (excellent or good), and respondents who took the survey in Vietnamese. FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN SANTA ANA, CHILD IN HSLD & QUALITY OF LIFE Prefer not to
answer
Not sure 0.3
6.4 Very dissatisfied
13.1 Somewhat
dissatisfied
21.8 Somewhat
satisfied
45.6 Very satisfied
12.6 13.3 13.3
25.0 46.6 45.9
55.0 45.4
19.0 13.6
2.9 10.6
Very
satisfied
16.9 3.0 0.4
58.1 54.0
44.2 Smwt
satisfied
41.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Yes No Excellent, good
Fair Poor, very
poor
Years in Santa Ana (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q12) Quality of Life (Q2) % Respondents
City Council 22 – 28 7/7/2026
Quality of Life & City Services
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE, AGE, SURVEY LANGUAGE & GENDER
5.5 13.3 9.8 2.8
29.2 13.1 13.8
38.5 43.8 56.8 44.9
48.5 50.9
45.5 43.1
6.8 23.4
14.1 Very
satisfied
11.0 13.2
41.6 40.0
47.0 Smwt
satisfied
50.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Yes No 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older English Spanish Vietnamese Male Female Homeowner on Voter
File
Age Survey Language Gender
% Respondents
City Council 22 – 29 7/7/2026
Initial Ballot Test
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST
The primary research objective of this tracking survey was to estimate voters’ support for renewing the Measure X sales tax at the current 1.5 cent rate to maintain funding for city services, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, parks and public facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, fixing potholes, removing graffiti/litter, and providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 911 emergency response. To this end, Question 5 was designed to take an early assessment of voters’ support for the proposed measure.
The motivation for placing Question 5 near the front of the survey is twofold. First, voter support for a measure can often depend on the amount of information they have about a measure. At this point in the survey, the respondent has not been provided information about the proposed measure beyond what is presented in the ballot language. This situation is analogous to a voter casting a ballot with limited knowledge about the measure, such as what might occur in the absence of an effective campaign. Question 5, also known as the Initial Ballot Test, is thus a good measure of voter support for the proposed measure as it is today, on the natural. Because the Initial Ballot Test provides a gauge of natural support for the measure, it also serves a second purpose as a useful baseline from which to judge the impact of various information items conveyed later in the survey on voter support for the measure.
Question 5 Later this year, voters in Santa Ana may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure.
Let me read you a summary of the measure. To maintain funding for city services, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, parks and public facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; fixing potholes; removing graffiti/litter; and providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 911 emergency response; shall City of Santa Ana's ordinance renewing the existing 1.5 cent sales tax be adopted at the current rate (no increase), providing approximately 84 million dollars annually for city services until ended by voters, with independent audits, citizen oversight, and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
FIGURE 8 INITIAL BALLOT TEST
Figure 8 presents the results of the Initial
Ballot Test among all respondents. Overall, 64% of likely November 2026 voters surveyed indicated that they would support the proposed Measure X renewal, whereas 25% stated that they would
oppose the measure and approximately
11% were unsure or unwilling to share
their vote choice. For general taxes in California, the level of support recorded at the Initial Ballot Test is approximately 14
percentage points above the simple
majority (50%+1) required for passage.
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure 2.1
8.5 Definitely no
18.9 Probably no
6.5 Probably yes
27.5 Definitely yes
36.5 64%
25%
City Council 22 – 30 7/7/2026
Initial Ballot Test
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS For the interested reader, Table 1 shows how support for the measure at the Initial Ballot Test varied by key demographic traits. The blue column (Approximate % of Universe) indicates the percentage of the likely November 2026 electorate that each subgroup category comprises. Support for the proposed measure was widespread, exceeding a majority in nearly all identified subgroups and exceeding 60% in most.
TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes % Not sure
Overall 100.0 64.0 8.5
Less than 5 15.1 81.5 9.1
5 to 9 11.5 68.7 7.0
10 to 14 9.0 61.7 8.6
15 or more 64.4 60.4 7.8
Satisfied 62.5 76.1 7.9
Dissatisfied 37.5 41.1 9.8
Yes 28.6 69.6 7.0
No 71.4 66.1 9.9
Excellent, good 46.2 79.8 4.6
Fair 39.1 55.3 15.2
Poor, very poor 14.7 40.1 3.9
Since June 2016 42.2 71.2 11.2
Before June 2016 57.8 58.8 6.5
Yes 47.6 59.1 6.4
No 52.4 68.5 10.4
Yes 79.6 65.8 9.3
No 20.4 56.9 5.5
18 to 29 24.6 77.5 13.3
30 to 39 19.6 62.9 15.1
40 to 49 14.1 64.6 4.9
50 to 64 19.3 64.1 3.2
65 or older 22.4 49.8 4.3
Yes 40.8 55.3 6.2
No 59.2 70.0 10.1
Yes 25.5 61.7 4.4
No 74.5 64.8 9.9
Democrat 52.8 72.9 5.2
Republican 23.5 49.4 7.9
Other / DTS 23.7 58.8 16.5
Single dem 25.5 68.8 5.3
Dual dem 18.9 75.7 7.3
Single rep 12.0 50.5 4.4
Dual rep 4.5 52.9 0.0
Other 16.8 64.5 10.3
Mixed 22.3 57.8 15.7
English 81.6 65.1 8.6
Spanish 13.4 56.3 4.7
Vietnamese 5.0 66.5 16.2
Male 49.8 62.7 9.9
Female 50.2 67.0 8.3
Homeowner on Voter File
Household Party Type
Age
Years in Santa Ana (Q1)
Party
Quality of Life (Q2)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Child in Hsld (Q12)
Registration Year
Gender
Likely to vote by mail
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Survey Language
City Council 22 – 31 7/7/2026
Initial Ballot Test
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE Respondents who did not support the measure or were unsure at the Initial Ballot Test were subsequently asked if there was a particular reason for their position. Question 6 was asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any reason that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 9.
Among the reasons offered for not supporting the measure, the perception that city funds have been/will be mismanaged or misspent (36%), a belief that taxes are already too high (26%), and no stated reason/not sure (17%) were the most common.
Question 6 Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the measure I just described? FIGURE 9 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE
36.2 26.0
16.9 8.1
7.8 7.2
7.1 5.8
5.6 4.3
4.0 1.6
4.6 2.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Money is misspent, mismanaged
Taxes already too high
Not sure / No particular reason
Money will go to employee salaries, pensions
Economic, inflation, cost of living concerns
Do not trust City
Need more information
Other ways to be funded
Reference to other cities with lower tax rates
Money should not go to law enforcement
Illegal immigration issues
It will hurt local economy
Mentioned past ballot measure
Oppose some potential spending projects
% Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure
City Council 22 – 32 7/7/2026
Projects & Services
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
P ROJECTS & S ERVICES
The ballot language presented in Question 5 indicated that the proposed sales tax measure would be used to maintain funding for city services, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, parks and public facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, fixing potholes, removing graffiti/litter, and providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 911 emergency response. The purpose of Question 7 was to provide respondents with a full range of projects and services that may be funded by the measure, and to identify which of these projects voters most favored funding with sales tax proceeds.
After reading each project or service that may be funded by the measure, respondents were asked if they would favor or oppose spending some of the money on that particular item assuming that the measure passes. Descriptions of the projects tested, as well as voters’ responses, are shown in Figure 10 below.4
Question 7 The measure we've been discussing will provide funding for a variety of services in your community. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to:
_____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 10 PROJECTS & SERVICES
All projects and services tested were popular with Santa Ana voters, with more than seven-in-ten respondents indicating they would favor spending measure proceeds on seven of the eight items tested. That said, the services that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents were fixing potholes and paving/maintaining city streets (88% strongly or somewhat favor), repairing infrastructure including storm drains, bridges, sidewalks, and public facilities (87%), keeping
4. For the full text of the services tested, turn to Question 7 in Questionnaire & Toplines on page 30.
63.9 64.1
65.7 65.0
61.7 61.2
63.4 46.3
24.1 23.0
20.7 20.2
21.6 20.9
15.5 22.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Fix potholes, pave/maintain city streets
Repair aging infrastructure including storm drains,
bridges, sidewalks, public facilities
Keep parks, playgrounds safe, clean, well-maintained
Remove graffiti, clean piles of trash, litter along streets, sidewalks, in public areas
Provide fire protection, paramedic services
Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies
Address homelessness
Provide law enforcement services, including crime
prevention, investigations
Q7c Q7e Q7b Q7a Q7f Q7d Q7g Q7h
% Respondents
Strongly favor Somewhat favor
City Council 22 – 33 7/7/2026
Projects & Services
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 parks and playgrounds safe, clean, and well-maintained (86%), and removing graffiti and cleaning up piles of trash and litter along streets, sidewalks, and in public areas (85%).
SERVICE RATINGS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 2 presents the top five services (based on the percentage of respondents who strongly favor each) by position at the Initial Ballot Test.
Not surprisingly, individuals who initially opposed the measure were generally less likely to favor spending money on a given service when compared with supporters. Nevertheless, initial supporters, opponents, and the undecided did agree on three of the top five priorities for funding.
TABLE 2 TOP PROJECTS & SERVICES BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5) Item Project/Service Summary
% Strongly
Favor
Q7b Keep parks, playgrounds safe, clean, well-maintained 79 Q7g Address homelessness 77
Q7a Remove graffiti, clean piles of trash, litter along streets, sidewalks, in public areas 77 Q7c Fix potholes, pave/maintain city streets 74
Q7e Repair aging infrastructure including storm drains, bridges, sidewalks, public facilities 74
Q7e Repair aging infrastructure including storm drains, bridges, sidewalks, public facilities 45
Q7f Provide fire protection, paramedic services 44
Q7c Fix potholes, pave/maintain city streets 44
Q7a Remove graffiti, clean piles of trash, litter along streets, sidewalks, in public areas 42 Q7d Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies 40
Q7f Provide fire protection, paramedic services 63
Q7a Remove graffiti, clean piles of trash, litter along streets, sidewalks, in public areas 62 Q7c Fix potholes, pave/maintain city streets 60
Q7b Keep parks, playgrounds safe, clean, well-maintained 59 Q7e Repair aging infrastructure including storm drains, bridges, sidewalks, public facilities 58
Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 325)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 129)
Not Sure
(n = 43)
City Council 22 – 34 7/7/2026
Positive Arguments
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
P OSITIVE A RGUMENTS
If the City chooses to place a measure on an upcoming ballot, voters will be exposed to various arguments about the measure in the ensuing months. Proponents of the measure will present arguments to try to persuade voters to support a measure, just as opponents may present arguments to achieve the opposite goal. For this study to be a reliable gauge of voter support for the proposed sales tax measure, it is important that the survey simulate the type of discussion and debate that will occur prior to the vote taking place and identify how this information ultimately shapes voters’ opinions about the measure.
Question 8 What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we've been discussing. Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? FIGURE 11 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS
35.6 37.3
34.9 32.2
32.4 33.0
33.5 32.0
30.2 32.2
20.4 37.9
31.5 33.7
36.2 35.7
32.5 31.7
32.6 31.9
29.5 34.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
City maintains 454 mi of streets, 90 mi of storm drains, 371 acres of parks, playfields; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure, parks in good condition
All money raised by measure will stay local to fund essential services, facilities here in Santa Ana; by law, it can’t be taken away by Federal Government, State or County
Fast emergency response times for 911 critical for saving lives; measure ensures enough law enforcement officers, firefighters, paramedics to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
Measure will help protect quality of life, keep Santa Ana a special place to live by keeping city safe, clean well-maintained City of Santa Ana has $900M in unfunded projects that need to be completed; the longer we wait to fix streets, infrastructure, facilities, the more expensive it will become
Measure will not increase sales tax your hsld currently pays; it simply removes sunset on sales tax approved by voters in 2018 at current rate to continue funding important city services Over past 6 yrs, City reinvested every dime of sales tax into community to fix streets, infrastructure, public safety, graffiti, pay for services; voting yes will allow important source of funding to continue
Most of sales tax generated locally goes to State, County; measure ensures higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay in Santa Ana, we have local control over how those funds are spent Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl citizen oversight, independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent
In these uncertain times, we can’t rely on State or Federal government; measure provides stable, predictable funding for city services that is locally controlled
Measure makes good financial sense; some money raised by sales tax comes from people who visit or pass through Santa Ana, but don’t live here
Q8b Q8a Q8c Q8g Q8j Q8e Q8f Q8d1 Q8h Q8d2 Q8i
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
City Council 22 – 35 7/7/2026
Positive Arguments
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 The objective of Question 8 was thus to present respondents with arguments in favor of the proposed measure and identify whether they felt the arguments were convincing reasons to support it. Arguments in opposition to the measure were also presented and are discussed later in this report (see Negative Arguments on page 21). Within each series, specific arguments were administered in random order to avoid a systematic position bias.
Figure 11 on the previous page presents the truncated positive arguments tested, as well as voters’ reactions to the arguments. The arguments are sorted from most convincing to least convincing based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the argument was either a ‘very convincing’ or ‘somewhat convincing’ reason to support the measure. Using this methodology, the most compelling positive arguments were: The City maintains 454 miles of streets, 90 miles of storm drains, and 371 acres of parks and playfields. This measure provides the funding we need to keep our streets, infrastructure, and parks in good condition (74% very or somewhat convincing), All money raised by the measure will stay local to fund essential services and facilities here in Santa Ana. By law, it can't be taken away by the Federal Government, State or County (69%), and Fast emergency response times for 911 calls are critical for saving lives. This measure ensures that we have enough law enforcement officers, firefighters, and paramedics to respond quickly to 911 emergencies (69%).
TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 3 on the next page lists the top five most convincing positive arguments (based on the percentage of respondents who cited it as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test. The most striking pattern in the table is that the positive arguments resonated with a much higher percentage of voters who were initially inclined to support the measure when compared to voters who initially opposed the measure or were unsure. Nevertheless, one specific argument was ranked among the top five most compelling by supporters, opponents, and the undecided.
City Council 22 – 36 7/7/2026
Positive Arguments
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 TABLE 3 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5) Item Positive Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q8a All money raised by measure will stay local to fund essential services, facilities here in Santa Ana; by law, it can’t be taken away by Federal Government, State or County 54 Q8b
City maintains 454 mi of streets, 90 mi of storm drains, 371 acres of parks, playfields; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure, parks in good condition
49 Q8f
Over past 6 yrs, City reinvested every dime of sales tax into community to fix streets, infrastructure, public safety, graffiti, pay for services; voting yes will allow important source of funding to continue
49 Q8c
Fast emergency response times for 911 critical for saving lives; measure ensures enough law enforcement officers, firefighters, paramedics to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
47 Q8d2 In these uncertain times, we can’t rely on State or Federal government; measure provides stable, predictable funding for city services that is locally controlled 47 Q8c
Fast emergency response times for 911 critical for saving lives; measure ensures enough law enforcement officers, firefighters, paramedics to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
12 Q8e
Measure will not increase sales tax your hsld currently pays; it simply removes sunset on sales tax approved by voters in 2018 at current rate to continue funding important city services
12 Q8d2 In these uncertain times, we can’t rely on State or Federal government; measure provides stable, predictable funding for city services that is locally controlled 8 Q8j
City of Santa Ana has $900M in unfunded projects that need to be completed; the longer we wait to fix streets, infrastructure, facilities, the more expensive it will become
8 Q8a All money raised by measure will stay local to fund essential services, facilities here in Santa Ana; by law, it can’t be taken away by Federal Government, State or County 8 Q8b
City maintains 454 mi of streets, 90 mi of storm drains, 371 acres of parks, playfields; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure, parks in good condition
30 Q8c
Fast emergency response times for 911 critical for saving lives; measure ensures enough law enforcement officers, firefighters, paramedics to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
21 Q8d1
Most of sales tax generated locally goes to State, County; measure ensures higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay in Santa Ana, we have local control over how those funds are spent
18 Q8h Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl citizen oversight, independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent 16 Q8j
City of Santa Ana has $900M in unfunded projects that need to be completed; the longer we wait to fix streets, infrastructure, facilities, the more expensive it will become
14 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 325)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 129)
Not Sure
(n = 43)
City Council 22 – 37 7/7/2026
Interim Ballot Test
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
I NTERIM B ALLOT T EST
After exposing respondents to services that could be funded by the measure as well as the types of positive arguments voters may encounter during an election cycle, the survey again presented respondents with the ballot language used previously to gauge how support for the proposed sales tax measure may have changed. As shown in Figure 12, overall support among likely November 2026 voters remained steady at 64%, with 39% of voters indicating that they would definitely vote yes on the measure. Approximately 25% of respondents opposed the measure at this point in the survey, and an additional 10% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.
Question 9 Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again. To maintain funding for city services, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, parks and public facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; fixing potholes; removing graffiti/litter; and providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 911 emergency response; shall City of Santa Ana's ordinance renewing the existing 1.5 cent sales tax be adopted at the current rate (no increase), providing approximately 84 million dollars annually for city services until ended by voters, with independent audits, citizen oversight, and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 12 INTERIM BALLOT TEST
SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Table 4 on the next page shows how support for the measure at this point in the survey varied by key voter subgroups, as well as the percentage change in subgroup support when compared with the Initial Ballot Test. Positive differences appear in green, whereas negative differences in red. Support for the proposed sales tax measure increased or decreased by modest amounts (five percentage points or less) between the Initial and Interim Ballot Tests for most subgroups. Notable exceptions include those who have lived in Santa Ana for less than 5 years (+7%), dual Democrat households (-7%), and those who took the survey in Vietnamese (+10%) or Spanish (+7%).
Definitely yes
39.1 Probably yes
25.3 Probably no
10.1 Definitely no
15.1 Not sure
6.4 Prefer not to
answer
4.0 64%
25%
City Council 22 – 38 7/7/2026
Interim Ballot Test
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 TABLE 4 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5)
Overall 100.0 64.4 +0.4
Less than 5 15.1 88.8 +7.4
5 to 9 11.5 73.8 +5.1
10 to 14 9.0 63.1 +1.4
15 or more 64.4 58.1 -2.3
Satisfied 62.5 77.5 +1.4
Dissatisfied 37.5 40.2 -0.9
Yes 28.6 66.8 -2.8
No 71.4 66.9 +0.7
Excellent, good 46.2 77.5 -2.2
Fair 39.1 58.6 +3.3
Poor, very poor 14.7 40.9 +0.8
Since June 2016 42.2 73.8 +2.6
Before June 2016 57.8 57.5 -1.3
Yes 47.6 53.9 -5.2
No 52.4 73.9 +5.4
Yes 79.6 66.3 +0.5
No 20.4 56.7 -0.2
18 to 29 24.6 82.6 +5.1
30 to 39 19.6 62.7 -0.2
40 to 49 14.1 65.8 +1.1
50 to 64 19.3 64.7 +0.6
65 or older 22.4 44.6 -5.1
Yes 40.8 57.3 +2.0
No 59.2 69.2 -0.8
Yes 25.5 63.5 +1.8
No 74.5 64.7 -0.1
Democrat 52.8 70.8 -2.1
Republican 23.5 51.4 +2.0
Other / DTS 23.7 63.0 +4.2
Single dem 25.5 69.6 +0.7
Dual dem 18.9 68.8 -6.8
Single rep 12.0 54.4 +3.9
Dual rep 4.5 52.9 +0.0
Other 16.8 70.0 +5.4
Mixed 22.3 58.1 +0.3
English 81.6 63.9 -1.2
Spanish 13.4 62.7 +6.5
Vietnamese 5.0 76.6 +10.1
Male 49.8 63.5 +0.8
Female 50.2 67.0 -0.0
Years in Santa Ana (Q1)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Child in Hsld (Q12)
Quality of Life (Q2)
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to vote by mail
Age
Survey Language
Gender
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Party
Household Party Type
City Council 22 – 39 7/7/2026
Negative Arguments
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
N EGATIVE A RGUMENTS
Whereas Question 8 presented respondents with arguments in favor of the measure, Question 10 presented respondents with arguments designed to elicit opposition to the measure. In the case of Question 10, however, respondents were asked if they felt that the argument was a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to oppose the measure. The arguments tested, as well as voters’ opinions about the arguments, are presented in Figure 13.
Question 10 Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying. Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure?
FIGURE 13 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS
Among the negative arguments tested, the most compelling were: Residents and local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, spiking gas prices, and cost of living increases. Many are struggling to stay afloat. Now is not the time to raise taxes (76% very or somewhat convincing), There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means the City can divert the money to pet projects without any say from voters. We can't trust the City with our tax dollars. They will mismanage the money (68%), and Everyone is coming after us for tax increases - including state and county taxes, school bonds, and other taxes that will be on the ballot next year. Enough is enough. We can't afford to keep raising our taxes (67%).
TOP NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 5 on the next page ranks the top five negative arguments (based on % very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test.
46.2 41.9
40.1 44.4
33.1 29.4
26.2 27.1
19.9 23.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by
inflation, high interest rates, spiking gas prices, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes
There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent,
which means City can divert money to pet projects
without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars; they will mismanage money
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state and county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
Santa Ana has the highest sales tax of any city in Orange County.
Santa Ana is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, and those on fixed incomes.
Passing this tax will make it even less affordable.
Q10a Q10c Q10b Q10e Q10d
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
City Council 22 – 40 7/7/2026
Negative Arguments
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 TABLE 5 NEGATIVE ARGUMENT BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5) Item Negative Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q10e Santa Ana has the highest sales tax of any city in Orange County. 35 Q10a
Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, spiking gas prices, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes
34 Q10c
There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means City can divert money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars; they will mismanage money
30 Q10b
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state and county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
27 Q10d Santa Ana is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, and those on fixed incomes. Passing this tax will make it even less affordable. 19 Q10a
Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, spiking gas prices, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes
76 Q10b
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state and county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
74 Q10c
There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means City can divert money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars; they will mismanage money
70 Q10e Santa Ana has the highest sales tax of any city in Orange County. 69 Q10d Santa Ana is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, and those on fixed incomes. Passing this tax will make it even less affordable. 64 Q10a
Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, spiking gas prices, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes
55 Q10c
There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means City can divert money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars; they will mismanage money
50 Q10d Santa Ana is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, and those on fixed incomes. Passing this tax will make it even less affordable. 47 Q10e Santa Ana has the highest sales tax of any city in Orange County. 45 Q10b
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state and county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
42 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 325)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 129)
Not Sure
(n = 43)
City Council 22 – 41 7/7/2026
Final Ballot Test
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
F INAL B ALLOT T EST
Voters’ opinions about ballot measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information presented to the public on a measure has been limited. An important goal of the survey was thus to gauge how voters’ opinions about the proposed measure may be affected by the information they could encounter during the course of an election cycle. After providing respondents with the wording of the proposed measure, projects and services that could be funded, and arguments in favor of and against the proposal, the survey again asked voters whether they would vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the proposed sales tax measure.
Question 11 Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one more time. To maintain funding for city services, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, parks and public facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; fixing potholes; removing graffiti/litter; and providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 911 emergency response; shall City of Santa Ana's ordinance renewing the existing 1.5 cent sales tax be adopted at the current rate (no increase), providing approximately 84 million dollars annually for city services until ended by voters, with independent audits, citizen oversight, and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 14 FINAL BALLOT TEST
At this point in the survey, support for the measure was found among 61% of likely November 2026 voters surveyed, with 33% indicating they would definitely support the measure. Approximately 26% of respondents opposed the measure at the Final Ballot Test, and 13% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure 4.7
8.1 Definitely no
17.5 Probably no
8.5 Probably yes
28.8 Definitely yes
32.5 26% 61%
City Council 22 – 42 7/7/2026
Change in Support
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
C HANGE IN S UPPORT
Table 6 provides a closer look at how support for the proposed measure changed over the course of the survey by calculating the difference in support between the Initial, Interim, and Final Ballot Tests within subgroups of voters. The percentage of support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test is shown in the column with the heading % Probably or Definitely Yes. The columns to the right show the difference between the Final and the Initial, and the Final and Interim Ballot Tests. Positive differences appear in green, and negative differences appear in red.
TABLE 6 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5)
Change From
Interim Ballot
Test (Q9)
Overall 100.0 61.3 -2.7 -3.1
Less than 5 15.1 86.6 +5.1 -2.2
5 to 9 11.5 68.4 -0.4 -5.4
10 to 14 9.0 60.2 -1.5 -2.9
15 or more 64.4 55.2 -5.2 -3.0
Satisfied 62.5 76.6 +0.5 -0.9
Dissatisfied 37.5 36.2 -4.9 -4.0
Yes 28.6 66.3 -3.3 -0.5
No 71.4 63.3 -2.8 -3.5
Excellent, good 46.2 78.2 -1.6 +0.6
Fair 39.1 51.1 -4.2 -7.5
Poor, very poor 14.7 38.2 -1.9 -2.7
Since June 2016 42.2 67.5 -3.7 -6.2
Before June 2016 57.8 56.7 -2.1 -0.8
Yes 47.6 53.9 -5.2 +0.0
No 52.4 68.0 -0.5 -5.9
Yes 79.6 65.6 -0.3 -0.7
No 20.4 44.5 -12.4 -12.2
18 to 29 24.6 73.9 -3.6 -8.8
30 to 39 19.6 59.7 -3.2 -3.0
40 to 49 14.1 61.8 -2.8 -3.9
50 to 64 19.3 59.5 -4.6 -5.2
65 or older 22.4 50.1 +0.3 +5.4
Yes 40.8 54.1 -1.2 -3.2
No 59.2 66.2 -3.8 -3.0
Yes 25.5 61.3 -0.4 -2.2
No 74.5 61.3 -3.5 -3.4
Democrat 52.8 69.7 -3.2 -1.1
Republican 23.5 42.3 -7.1 -9.1
Other / DTS 23.7 61.4 +2.6 -1.6
Single dem 25.5 64.2 -4.6 -5.4
Dual dem 18.9 74.2 -1.4 +5.4
Single rep 12.0 37.4 -13.1 -17.0
Dual rep 4.5 50.9 -1.9 -1.9
Other 16.8 70.1 +5.5 +0.1
Mixed 22.3 55.3 -2.5 -2.8
English 81.6 61.1 -4.0 -2.8
Spanish 13.4 59.3 +3.1 -3.4
Vietnamese 5.0 69.2 +2.7 -7.4
Male 49.8 63.3 +0.6 -0.2
Female 50.2 60.6 -6.4 -6.4
Years in Santa Ana (Q1)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Child in Hsld (Q12)
Quality of Life (Q2)
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to vote by mail
Age
Survey Language
Gender
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Party
Household Party Type
City Council 22 – 43 7/7/2026
Change in Support
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 As expected, voters generally responded to the negative arguments with a reduction in their support for the sales tax measure when compared with the levels recorded at the Interim Ballot Test.
The general trend over the course of the entire survey (Initial to Final Ballot Test) was also one of waning support, averaging -3% overall. Even with this decline, support for the proposed sales tax measure at the Final Ballot Test (61%) remained 11% above the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage.
Whereas Table 6 displays changes in support for the measure over the course of the interview at the subgroup level, Table 7 displays the individual-level changes that occurred between the Initial and Final Ballot tests for the measure. On the left side of the table is shown each of the response options to the Initial Ballot Test and the percentage of respondents in each group. The cells in the body of the table depict movement within each response group (row) based on the information provided throughout the course of the survey as recorded by the Final Ballot Test.
For example, in the first row we see that of the 36.5% of respondents who indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the Initial Ballot Test, 25.0% also indicated they would definitely support the measure at the Final Ballot Test. Approximately 9.7% moved to the probably support group, 0.2% moved to the probably oppose group, 0.0% moved to the definitely oppose group, and 1.7% stated they were now unsure of their vote choice.
To ease interpretation of the table, the cells are color coded. Red shaded cells indicate declining support, green shaded cells indicate increasing support, whereas white cells indicate no movement. Moreover, within the cells, a white font indicates a fundamental change in the vote: from yes to no, no to yes, or not sure to either yes or no.
TABLE 7 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL & FINAL BALLOT TEST
As one might expect, the information conveyed in the survey had the greatest impact on individuals who either weren’t sure about how they would vote at the Initial Ballot Test or were tentative in their vote choice (probably yes or probably no). Moreover, Table 7 makes clear that although the information did impact some voters, it did not do so in a consistent way for all respondents.
Some respondents found the information conveyed during the course of the interview to be a reason to become more supportive of the measure, whereas a slightly larger percentage found the same information to be a reason to be less supportive. Despite 15% of respondents making a fundamental5 shift in their opinion about the measure over the course of the interview, the net impact is that support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test (61%) was just three percentage point different than support at the Initial Ballot Test (64%).
5. This is, they changed from a position of support, opposition, or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a different position at the Final Ballot Test.
Definitely
support
Probably
support
Probably
oppose
Definitely
oppose Not sure
Definitely support 36.5% 25.0% 9.7% 0.2% 0.0% 1.7%
Probably support 27.5% 6.8% 16.6% 0.5% 0.1% 3.5%
Probably oppose 6.5% 0.2% 0.2% 2.8% 1.8% 1.6%
Definitely oppose 18.9% 0.3% 0.0% 3.1% 14.4% 1.1%
Not sure 10.6% 0.2% 2.3% 2.1% 1.2% 4.9%
Initial Ballot Test (Q5)
Final Ballot Test (Q11)
City Council 22 – 44 7/7/2026
Background & Demographics
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS TABLE 8 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE In addition to questions directly related to the proposed measure, the study collected basic demographic information about respondents and their households. Some of this information was gathered
during the interview, although much of it was collected from the voter file. The profile of the likely November 2026 voter sample represented in this
report is shown in Table 8.
Total Respondents 508
Years in Santa Ana (Q1)
Less than 5 14.9
5 to 9 11.3
10 to 14 8.9
15 or more 63.6
Prefer not to answer 1.3
Child in Hsld (Q12)
Yes 26.8
No 66.7
Prefer not to answer 6.5
Gender
Male 46.6
Female 47.0
Non-binary 0.3
Prefer not to answer 6.1
Party
Democrat 52.8
Republican 23.5
Other / DTS 23.7
Age
18 to 29 24.6
30 to 39 19.6
40 to 49 14.1
50 to 64 19.3
65 or older 22.4
Registration Year
Since June 2016 42.2
Before June 2016 57.8
Household Party Type
Single dem 25.5
Dual dem 18.9
Single rep 12.0
Dual rep 4.5
Other 16.8
Mixed 22.3
Homeowner on Voter File
Yes 47.6
No 52.4
Likely to Vote by Mail
Yes 79.6
No 20.4
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Yes 40.8
No 59.2
Likely Low Turnout Election Voter
Yes 25.5
No 74.5
Survey Language
English 81.6
Spanish 13.4
Vietnamese 5.0
City Council 22 – 45 7/7/2026
Methodology
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of Santa Ana to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking the items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, items were asked in random order for each respondent.
Some questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only individuals who did not support the sales tax measure (or were unsure) at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 5) were asked Question 6 regarding their reasons for not supporting the measure. In some cases, two versions of a project or argument were tested to identify how wording or framing differences impact perception of the item. In such cases, half of the sample received the item with version 1 wording (e.g., Question 8, item D1) and the other half received version 2 (e.g., Question 8, item D2). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 30) identifies the skip instructions that were used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.
PROGRAMMING, PRE-TEST & TRANSLATION Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conducting telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to keypunching mistakes should they occur. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled voters. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into voter households in the City prior to formally beginning the survey. Once finalized, the questionnaire was professionally translated into Spanish and Vietnamese to allow for data collection in three languages.
SAMPLE The survey was administered to a stratified and clustered random sample of registered voters in the City who are likely to participate in the November 2026 general election, with a subset who are also likely to participate in the lower-turnout June 2026 primary. Consistent with the profile of this universe, the sample was stratified into clusters, each representing a combination of age, gender, and household party type. Individuals were then randomly selected based on their profile into an appropriate cluster. This method ensures that if a person of a particular profile refuses to participate, they are replaced by an individual who shares their same profile.
STATISTICAL MARGIN OF ERROR By using the probability-based sampling design noted above, True North ensured that the final sample was representative of voters in the city who are likely to participate in the November 2026 general election. The results of the survey can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all voters likely to participate in said election.
Because not all voters participated in the study, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between City Council 22 – 46 7/7/2026
Methodology
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 what was found in the survey of voters for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 85,586 likely November 2026 voters identified in the city had been surveyed for the study.
Figure 15 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 4.3% at the 95% confidence level.
FIGURE 15 MARGIN OF ERROR @ 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by subgroups such as age, gender, and partisan affiliation. Figure 15 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.
RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (telephone, text, and email) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Telephone interviews averaged 17 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would likely bias the sample.
Voters recruited via email and text were assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only voters who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that each voter could com508 Respondents ± 4.3%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
City Council 22 – 47 7/7/2026
Methodology
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 plete the survey only one time. A total of 508 surveys were completed between May 26 and June 1, 2026.
DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, weighting, and preparing frequency analyses and crosstabulations.
ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole number, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.
These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and charts for a given question.
City Council 22 – 48 7/7/2026
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 1
City of Santa Ana
Sales Tax Tracking Survey
Prelim Toplines (n=508)
June 2026
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and Im calling from TNR on behalf of the City of Santa Ana. Were conducting a confidential survey of voters about important issues in the city and Id like to get your opinions.
If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.
If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.
If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by this particular individual.
Section 2: Quality of Life & City Services
Id like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in Santa Ana.
Q1 How long have you lived in Santa Ana?
1 Less than 1 year 4%
2 1 to 4 years 11%
3 5 to 9 years 11%
4 10 to 14 years 9%
5 15 years or longer 64%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in Santa Ana? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 5%
2 Good 40%
3 Fair 38%
4 Poor 9%
5 Very poor 5%
98 Not sure 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
City Council 22 – 49 7/7/2026
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 City of Santa Ana Sales Tax Tracking Survey June 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 2
Q3
If the city government could change one thing to make Santa Ana a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Address homeless issues 20%
Improve public safety 16%
Reduce traffic congestion 9%
Clean up, beautify City (graffiti, landscaping) 9%
Improve infrastructure, roads 8%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything 7%
Enforce traffic laws 6%
Address parking issues 6%
Provide more affordable housing 5%
Improve parks, rec facilities 5%
Improve City-resident communication 5%
Reduce taxes, fees 4%
Enforce City codes 4%
Provide more police presence, response 4%
Address rent control issues 4%
Improve public transportation 3%
Improve fiscal management, budget 3%
Finish construction faster 3%
Improve street lighting 2%
Ban illegal fireworks 2%
Reduce police funding 2%
Address mental health issues 2%
Q4
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Santa Ana is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 13%
2 Somewhat satisfied 46%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 22%
4 Very dissatisfied 13%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
City Council 22 – 50 7/7/2026
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 City of Santa Ana Sales Tax Tracking Survey June 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 3
Section 3: Initial Ballot Test
Later this year, voters in Santa Ana may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure.
Q5
To maintain funding for city services, such as: • Keeping streets, sidewalks, parks and public facilities safe, clean, and wellmaintained • Fixing potholes • Removing graffiti/litter • And providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 9-1-1 emergency response
shall City of Santa Anas ordinance renewing the existing 1.5 (one point five) cent sales tax be adopted at the current rate (no increase), providing approximately 84 million dollars annually for city services until ended by voters, with independent audits, citizen oversight, and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?
1 Definitely yes 37% Skip to Q7
2 Probably yes 27% Skip to Q7
3 Probably no 7% Ask Q6
4 Definitely no 19% Ask Q6
98 Not sure 8% Ask Q6
99 Prefer not to answer 2% Skip to Q7
Q6
Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the measure I just described? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe your reason. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Money is misspent, mismanaged 36%
Taxes already too high 26%
Not sure / No particular reason 17%
Money will go to employee salaries, pensions 8%
Economic, inflation, cost of living concerns 8%
Need more information 7%
Do not trust City 7%
Other ways to be funded 6%
Reference to other cities with lower tax rates 6%
Money should not go to law enforcement 5%
Illegal immigration issues 4%
It will hurt local economy 4%
Mentioned past ballot measure 2%
Oppose some potential spending projects 2%
City Council 22 – 51 7/7/2026
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 City of Santa Ana Sales Tax Tracking Survey June 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 4
Section 4: Projects & Services
Q7
The measure weve been discussing will provide funding for a variety of services in your community.
If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer, if favor or oppose, then ask: Would that be strongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)?
Randomize
Strongly
favor
Somewhat
favor
Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose
No sure
Prefer not
to answer
A
Remove graffiti and clean piles of trash and
litter along streets, sidewalks, and in public
areas
65% 20% 3% 4% 3% 5%
B Keep parks and playgrounds safe, clean, and
well-maintained 66% 21% 1% 5% 2% 5%
C Fix potholes and pave/maintain city streets 64% 24% 3% 4% 1% 4% D Provide quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies 61% 21% 4% 6% 3% 5% E
Repair aging infrastructure including storm
drains, bridges, sidewalks, and public
facilities
64% 23% 2% 4% 2% 4%
F Provide fire protection and paramedic
services 62% 22% 4% 6% 3% 4%
G Address homelessness 63% 15% 2% 8% 5% 5%
H Provide law enforcement services, including
crime prevention and investigations 46% 23% 8% 12% 6% 5% Section 5: Positive Arguments
What Id like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure weve been discussing.
Q8 Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? Randomize. Split Sample D1/D2
Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A
All money raised by the measure will stay
local to fund essential services and facilities
here in Santa Ana. By law, it cant be taken
away by the Federal Government, State or
County.
37% 32% 10% 14% 3% 3%
B
The City maintains 454 miles of streets, 90
miles of storm drains, and 371 acres of parks
and playfields. This measure provides the
funding we need to keep our streets,
infrastructure, and parks in good condition.
36% 38% 12% 9% 2% 4%
City Council 22 – 52 7/7/2026
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 City of Santa Ana Sales Tax Tracking Survey June 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 5
C
Fast emergency response times for 9-1-1 calls
are critical for saving lives. This measure
ensures that we have enough law
enforcement officers, firefighters, and
paramedics to respond quickly to 9-1-1
emergencies.
35% 34% 11% 14% 4% 3%
D1
Most of the sales tax generated locally goes
to the State of California and Orange County.
This measure ensures that a higher
percentage of our sales tax dollars stay here
in Santa Ana and we have local control over
how those funds are spent.
32% 33% 8% 18% 6% 4%
D2
In these uncertain times, we cant rely on the
State or Federal government. This measure
provides stable and predictable funding for
city services that is locally controlled.
32% 30% 12% 15% 6% 5%
E
This measure will not increase the sales tax
your household currently pays. It simply
removes the sunset on the sales tax approved
by voters in 2018 at the current rate to
continue funding important city services.
33% 33% 10% 15% 5% 4%
F
Over the past six years, the City has
reinvested every dime of the sales tax
revenues back into the community to fix our
streets and infrastructure, improve public
safety, remove graffiti, and pay for essential
city services. Voting yes on this measure will
allow this important source of funding to
continue.
34% 32% 10% 19% 3% 3%
G
This measure will help protect our quality of
life and keep Santa Ana a special place to live
by keeping our city safe, clean and wellmaintained.
32% 36% 10% 14% 4% 3%
H
The measure includes a clear system of
accountability including citizen oversight,
independent audits, and public disclosure of
how all funds are spent.
30% 32% 11% 19% 5% 3%
I
This measure makes good financial sense.
Some of the money raised by the sales tax
comes from people who visit or pass through
Santa Ana, but dont live here.
20% 34% 17% 17% 6% 4%
J
The City of Santa Ana has more than 900
million dollars in unfunded projects that need
to be completed. The longer we wait to fix
our streets, infrastructure, and facilities, the
more expensive it will become.
32% 36% 12% 13% 3% 4%
City Council 22 – 53 7/7/2026
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 City of Santa Ana Sales Tax Tracking Survey June 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 6
Section 6: Interim Ballot Test
Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again.
Q9
To maintain funding for city services, such as: • Keeping streets, sidewalks, parks and public facilities safe, clean, and wellmaintained • Fixing potholes • Removing graffiti/litter • And providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 9-1-1 emergency response
shall City of Santa Anas ordinance renewing the existing 1.5 (one point five) cent sales tax be adopted at the current rate (no increase), providing approximately 84 million dollars annually for city services until ended by voters, with independent audits, citizen oversight, and all money locally controlled?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 39%
2 Probably yes 25%
3 Probably no 10%
4 Definitely no 15%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
Section 7: Negative Arguments
Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying.
Q10 Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure? Randomize
Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A
Residents and local businesses have been hit
hard by inflation, high interest rates, spiking
gas prices, and cost of living increases. Many
are struggling to stay afloat. Now is not the
time to raise taxes.
46% 29% 10% 6% 3% 5%
B
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases
including state and county taxes, school
bonds, and other taxes that will be on the
ballot next year. Enough is enough. We cant
afford to keep raising our taxes.
40% 27% 15% 11% 4% 4%
City Council 22 – 54 7/7/2026
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 City of Santa Ana Sales Tax Tracking Survey June 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 7
C
There are no guarantees on how funds will be
spent, which means the City can divert the
money to pet projects without any say from
voters. We cant trust the City with our tax
dollars. They will mismanage the money.
42% 26% 13% 10% 5% 4%
D
Santa Ana is an expensive place to live,
especially for young families, seniors, and
those on fixed incomes. Passing this tax will
make it even less affordable.
33% 24% 18% 14% 7% 4%
E Santa Ana has the highest sales tax of any
city in Orange County. 44% 20% 14% 8% 9% 4%
Section 8: Final Ballot Test
Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one more time.
Q11
To maintain funding for city services, such as: • Keeping streets, sidewalks, parks and public facilities safe, clean, and wellmaintained • Fixing potholes • Removing graffiti/litter • And providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 9-1-1 emergency response
shall City of Santa Anas ordinance renewing the existing 1.5 (one point five) cent sales tax be adopted at the current rate (no increase), providing approximately 84 million dollars annually for city services until ended by voters, with independent audits, citizen oversight, and all money locally controlled?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 32%
2 Probably yes 29%
3 Probably no 9%
4 Definitely no 17%
98 Not sure 8%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
City Council 22 – 55 7/7/2026
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 City of Santa Ana Sales Tax Tracking Survey June 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 8
Section 9: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just one background question for statistical purposes.
Q12 Do you have children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1 Yes 27%
2 No 67%
99 Prefer not to answer 7%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in this important survey.
Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Gender
1 Male 47%
2 Female 47%
3 Non-binary 0%
4 Prefer not to answer 6%
S2 Party
1 Democrat 53%
2 Republican 23%
3 Other 9%
4 DTS 15%
S3 Age on Voter File
1 18 to 29 25%
2 30 to 39 20%
3 40 to 49 14%
4 50 to 64 19%
5 65 or older 22%
S4 Registration Date
1 Since Nov 2020 20%
2 Jun 2016 to before Nov 2020 22%
3 Jun 2012 to before Jun 2016 14%
City Council 22 – 56 7/7/2026
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 City of Santa Ana Sales Tax Tracking Survey June 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 9
4 Before June 2012 44%
S5 Household Party Type
1 Single Dem 25%
2 Dual Dem 19%
3 Single Rep 12%
4 Dual Rep 5%
5 Single Other 12%
6 Dual Other 5%
7 Dem & Rep 4%
8 Dem & Other 10%
9 Rep & Other 7%
0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 1%
S6 Homeowner on Voter File
1 Yes 48%
2 No 52%
S7 Likely to Vote by Mail
1 Yes 80%
2 No 20%
S8 Likely November 2026 Voter
1 Yes 100%
2 No 0%
S9 Likely June 2026 Voter
1 Yes 41%
2 No 59%
S10 Likely Low Turnout Election Voter
1 Yes 26%
2 No 74%
City Council 22 – 57 7/7/2026
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Santa Ana True North Research, Inc. © 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 City of Santa Ana Sales Tax Tracking Survey June 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 10
S11 Survey Language
1 English 82%
2 Spanish 13%
3 Vietnamese 5%
City Council 22 – 58 7/7/2026
CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho
CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez
CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org Councilmember-Requested Item Report
DATE
July 7, 2026
TOPIC
Residential Permit Parking Program – Alternative Permit Format Evaluation
COUNCILMEMBER-REQUESTED ITEM TITLE
Discuss and Consider Directing the City Manager to Replace the Current Residential Parking Permit Sticker System with a Hanging Placard System Displayed from a Vehicle’s Rearview Mirror and Take All Necessary Actions to Implement the Transition
DISCUSSION
The City's Residential Permit Parking Program currently requires residents to affix parking permit stickers to their vehicles. While effective for identifying authorized vehicles, the current system creates privacy and safety concerns by visibly identifying vehicles associated with specific residential permit parking districts.
Additionally, residents have expressed concerns regarding the appearance of permanent decals on their vehicles and the inconvenience associated with transferring permits when vehicles are sold, replaced, or temporarily unavailable.
A hanging placard system, like disabled parking placards, provides a practical and resident-friendly alternative while maintaining the City's ability to enforce permit parking regulations. Such a system eliminates the need for permanent vehicle decals, allows permits to be easily transferred between vehicles when appropriate, and improves the overall appearance of participating vehicles without compromising enforcement.
This approach has already been implemented successfully by neighboring jurisdictions.
The City of Orange utilizes a residential permit parking program that issues hanging placards to residents rather than requiring permanent vehicle decals. The program has operated effectively while continuing to support parking enforcement, and the city also administers permit registration and renewals through an established online system, demonstrating that a placard-based program is both practical and manageable.
Adopting a similar model would align the city with a proven regional practice while providing residents with greater flexibility and convenience.
Upon Council direction, the City Manager shall take the necessary steps to transition the Residential Permit Parking Program from adhesive vehicle stickers to a hanging placard system, including updating administrative procedures, coordinating enforcement, and preparing any Municipal Code amendments necessary to implement City Council 23 – 1 7/7/2026
CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho
CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez
CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org the new permit format. Staff shall return to the City Council only as needed to approve any required ordinance amendments or other actions necessary to complete implementation.
SUBMITTED BY
Mayor Pro Tem David Peñaloza
EXHIBIT(S)
Sample Colors
GREEN -PANTONE 334 C RED- PANTONE 485 C
PEARL HARBOR GOLD- PANTONE 142 C BLUE-PANTONE 293 C
YELLOW-PANTONE 110 C ORANGE/SALMON-PANTONE 166 C
PURPLE-PANTONE 512 C MEDIUM BROWN-PANTONE 724 C
PAN AM SKY BLUE-PANTONE 297 C MEDIUM –BLUE PANTONE 2925 C City Council 23 – 2 7/7/2026
CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho
CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez
CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org City Council 23 – 3 7/7/2026
CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho
CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez
CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org Councilmember Requested Item Report
DATE
July 7, 2026
TOPIC
Southern California Edison Rate Affordability and State Legislative Reform
COUNCILMEMBER-REQUESTED ITEM TITLE
Discuss and Consider Directing the City Manager and City Attorney to Prepare a Resolution in Support of State Legislation to Lower Southern California Edison Rates and Protect Ratepayers and Evaluate Potential Intervention in California Public Utilities Commission Proceedings on Behalf of Santa Ana Residents
DISCUSSION
Background
Southern California Edison (SCE) rates have more than doubled since 2016. Ten new SCE rate increases are currently pending before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Today, one in five SCE households is behind on their electric bill by an average of $829, reflecting a growing and unsustainable debt crisis across the communities SCE serves. In 2025, SCE’s parent company, Edison International, reported $4.9 billion in profit, even as the utility was found responsible for the Eaton Fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes in Altadena and surrounding communities.
The primary driver of these escalating bills is structural. Under the rate-of-return regulatory model, investor-owned utilities like SCE generate profit primarily by building and expanding physical infrastructure, including poles, wires, substations, and related equipment. State regulators allow utilities to charge ratepayers the full cost of construction plus a guaranteed return on investment of approximately 10 percent per project, for years into the future. This creates a perverse incentive: the more a utility spends, the more it earns. Critics and regulators have long noted that this model encourages “gold-plating”: the practice of selecting more costly infrastructure solutions over more efficient alternatives because larger capital expenditures generate larger profits. This approach leaves ratepayers to foot the bill with no meaningful check on unnecessary spending.
Santa Ana residents are directly and disproportionately affected by these structural problems. As a community with a high proportion of working families and renters, the burden of rising utility costs falls on the households least able to absorb them. The CPUC’s own data confirm that utility debt and the share of customers qualifying for bill assistance programs have both grown significantly in recent years.
City Council 24 – 1 7/7/2026
Councilmember Requested Item – Southern California Edison Rate Affordability and State Legislative Reform
CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho
CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez
CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org State Legislative Reform Package
The California Legislature is currently considering a package of bills during the active 2025–2026 regular session, with a floor vote deadline of August 31, 2026, that would address the structural causes of high utility bills. On June 16, 2026, the San Diego City Council voted unanimously to endorse ten of these bills (Exhibit A), making Santa Ana an opportunity to join a growing coalition of California cities formally on record in support of ratepayer reform.
Collectively, the bills in this package are designed to:
Cap utility profits by tying allowable shareholder returns to objective benchmarks rather than open-ended rate-setting proceedings.
Curb overspending by requiring upfront CPUC approval before utilities draw on certain funding accounts, and mandating independent audits of wildfire mitigation expenditures before additional funds are approved.
Increase transparency by requiring public disclosure of the data and methodologies utilities use to calculate rates and fees, including the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment. Protect families immediately by requiring large data centers to fund their own grid upgrades rather than shifting those costs to residential ratepayers. Modernize the energy system by streamlining access to small-scale solar, enabling home batteries and EVs to function as virtual power plants, and supporting in-state manufacturing of grid components.
Below are the 14 bills included in the legislative package.
1. AB 2338 (Ransom): Requires utilities to justify any General Rate Case increase that exceeds the annual Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment, placing the burden on the utility rather than ratepayers to demonstrate the need for above-inflation rate hikes.
2. AB 2463 (Petrie-Norris): Directs the CPUC to conduct a comprehensive review of the methodologies used to determine the cost of capital and authorized return on equity for electrical and gas corporations, bringing greater consistency and ratepayer protection to the rate-setting process.
3. SB 905 (Becker): Reduces shareholder profits on safety investments, expands access to lowcost public financing of capital projects, ties executive compensation to reducing rate increases, and improves overall grid performance.
4. AB 1677 (Boerner): Caps the return on equity that investor-owned utilities may earn by tying the allowable shareholder profit limit to the long-term U.S. Treasury bond rate plus four percent.
5. SB 1098 (Perez): Limits the use of balancing and memorandum accounts—funding mechanisms that allow utilities to spend now and seek ratepayer reimbursement later—by channeling more spending decisions into the General Rate Case process where they are subject to public scrutiny.
6. AB 1774 (Boerner and Harabedian): Requires independent audits of utility wildfire mitigation spending before the CPUC approves additional wildfire-related expenditures, ensuring funds previously allocated have been properly spent and accounted for.
7. SB 868 (Wiener): Eliminates regulatory barriers for small plug-in and balcony solar devices by reclassifying them as household appliances exempt from utility interconnection requirements, making clean energy more accessible to renters and those without rooftop solar.
8. SB 943 (Becker): Directs the CPUC to develop a more equitable methodology for calculating high-voltage transmission charges and authorizes rate adjustments for industrial customers who switch to clean electricity, supporting decarbonization while controlling costs.
9. AB 1761 (Rogers): Requires the CPUC and investor-owned utilities to publicly disclose all data and methodologies used to calculate the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), City Council 24 – 2 7/7/2026
Councilmember Requested Item – Southern California Edison Rate Affordability and State Legislative Reform
CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho
ACTING CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez
CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org a fee charged to customers who switch to community or self-generated power, to identify billing errors and improve accountability.
10. SB 1138 (Padilla): Gives load-serving entities flexibility to meet up to 25 percent of their resource adequacy obligations through short-term market transactions rather than costly longterm contracts, reducing unnecessary procurement costs that are otherwise passed to ratepayers.
11. SB 1359 (Stern): Directs the CPUC to create a standardized methodology for forecasting gas demand to support the managed wind-down of unnecessary gas infrastructure, and prohibits utilities from charging customers for avoidable gas leaks.
12. AB 2516 (Petrie-Norris): Establishes the California Grid Manufacturing Initiative to aggregate state demand, coordinate procurement of critical grid components such as large transformers, and incentivize in-state manufacturing—allowing bulk purchasing savings currently foregone by utilities acting independently.
13. SB 886 (Padilla): Requires data centers to bear the full upfront cost of new transmission and distribution infrastructure and energy procurement needed to serve their operations, preventing those costs from being shifted to residential and small commercial ratepayers.
Proposed Resolution
This item requests that the City Council direct staff to prepare and agendize a resolution of the City Council formally supporting this legislative package. A formal resolution would place the City of Santa Ana on record in support of ratepayer protection before the Governor, the Legislature, and the CPUC, and would signal the City’s legislative priorities on utility affordability and oversight. Transmitting the resolution to State representatives and the Governor’s office, as similar to how the City of San Diego’s resolution directed, would ensure it is made part of the official record of support for these bills during the critical remaining months of the legislative session.
Potential Intervention in CPUC Proceedings
Cities may seek party status in CPUC proceedings pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure and are expressly recognized as potential participants under the Public Utilities Code's intervenor framework (see Pub. Util. Code §§ 1701, 1802(d)). While SCE's 2025 General Rate Case (Application A.23-05-010) was resolved by CPUC decision in September 2025, authorizing base revenue requirement increases of $544 million in 2026, $522 million in 2027, and $447 million in 2028, increases that are now being passed through to Santa Ana residents' bills, SCE has continued to file additional rate increase applications before the Commission since that decision. Those subsequent proceedings represent potential opportunities for the City to seek party status and formally advocate for Santa Ana ratepayers before the CPUC.
This item requests that the City Attorney evaluate which active SCE proceedings, if any, would be appropriate for the City to join; assess the applicable procedural requirements and deadlines; and report back to the City Council with findings and a recommendation, including the resource implications of participation.
Conclusion
Rising electric utility rates represent a direct and growing burden on Santa Ana families. While this item focuses on SCE as the primary electric utility serving Santa Ana, many of the structural reforms in this legislative package—including those addressing CPUC rate-setting methodology, utility overspending, and ratepayer accountability—would benefit customers across investor-owned electric and gas utilities statewide. A formal resolution of support and, if appropriate, participation in CPUC City Council 24 – 3 7/7/2026
Councilmember Requested Item – Southern California Edison Rate Affordability and State Legislative Reform
CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho
CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez
CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org proceedings would position Santa Ana as an active advocate for its residents on one of the most pressing affordability issues facing the community today.
SUBMITTED BY
Councilmember Jessie Lopez
EXHIBIT(S)
1. City of San Diego Draft Resolution in Support of Utility Affordability and Accountability Legislation, 2025–2026 Session (unanimously adopted by the San Diego City Council on June 16, 2026)
City Council 24 – 4 7/7/2026
lolì
1- 100
(R-2026-521)
RESOLUTIONNUMBERR-316829
DATE OF FINAL PASSAGE JUN 1 8 2026
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN DIEGO SUPPORTING CALIFORNIA SENATE BILLS
905, 1098, 943, 1138, 1359, AND 913 AND ASSEMBLY BILLS
2463,1761,2516, AND 2493 RELATING TO UTILITY
AFFORDABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE
2025-2026 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE REGULAR
SESSION.
RECITALS
The Council of the City of San Diego (Council) adopts this Resolution based on the following:
A. Rising utility rates in California continue to increase the cost of living for millions of residents. Between 2020 and 2025, residential rates for the three largest investor-owned utilities increased at a rapid pace, far exceeding infation. Pacific Gas and Electric Company rates increased by an average of 13.3% annually, Southern California Edison by 12.3%, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) by 9.1%. In December 2024, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) authorized an additional 18% revenue requirement increase for SDG&E.
San Diego County currently maintains the highest electricity rates in the nation, with costs reaching $0.45/kWh, approximately 2.5 times above the national average, and an average monthly residential bill of $313. According to 2024 and 2025 CPUC reports, SDG&E maintains the highest electricity rates in the state, and utility debt in the region has increased by over $200 million since 2021, with nearly 30% of customers now qualifying for bill assistance programs.
B. The following proposed legislation, currently pending in the 2025-2026 California Legislature Regular Session in both the Senate and Assembly (collectively, Utility Affordability and Accountability Legislative Package), aim to lower utility costs and hold investor-owned utility companies accountable:
-PAGE 1 OF 4-
City Council 24 – 5 7/7/2026
(R-2026-521)
1. Senate Bill 905, as amended June 1, 2026, seeks to reduce utility profits on wildfire investments, expand options for low-cost public financing of capital projects, tie executive pay to reducing rate increases, and improve grid capacity.
2. Senate Bill 1098, as amended March 24,2026, limits the use ofbalancing and memorandum accounts to bring more spending decisions into General Rate Cases, reducing unlimited corporate overspending.
3. Senate Bill 943, as amended March 23,2026, directs the CPUC to develop a more equitable methodology for calculating high-voltage transmission charges and authorizes rate adjustments for industrial customers who switch to clean electricity.
4. Senate Bill 1138, as amended April 9,2026, gives load-serving entities flexibility to meet up to 25% ofresource adequacy obligations through short-term transactions, reducing unnecessary procurement costs passed to ratepayers.
5. Senate Bill 1359, as amended May 14, 2026, directs the CPUC to rigorously review gas infrastructure investments over $10,000,000 to ensure non-gas pipeline alternatives are prioritized, and forces developers instead o f ratepayers to pay all upfront costs for new natural gas line extensions starting in 2030.
6. Senate Bill 913, as amended May 14, 2026, proposes several policy changes to authorize and expand the use of aggregated distributed energy resources to satisfy resource adequacy requirements.
7. Assembly Bill 2463, as amended April 13, 2026, requires the CPUC to conduct a comprehensive, systemwide review o f methodologies used to determine the cost of capital and authorized return on equity for electrical and gas corporations to bring greater consistency and ratepayer protection.
-PAGE 2 OF 4- City Council 24 – 6 7/7/2026
(R-2026-521)
8. Assembly Bill 1761, as amended March 19, 2026, requires the CPUC and investor-owned utilities to publicly disclose all data and methodologies used to calculate the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment to identify billing errors.
9. Assembly Bill 2516, as amended April 13,2026, establishes the California Grid Manufacturing Initiative to aggregate demand, coordinate procurement of critical grid components, and incentivize in-state manufacturing.
10. Assembly Bill 2493, as amended April 13,2026, helps prevent utility overspending by increasing independent oversight of transmission projects and enabling lowercost alternatives instead of expensive infrastructure build outs.
C. Collectively, passage ofthe Utility Affordability and Accountability Legislative Package will help lower costs, ensure fair electricity pricing, and advance equitable and affordable energy for residents across the state.
D. The City of San Diego's (City) support for the Utility Affordability and Accountability Legislative Package is consistent with previous actions by the Council to ensure accountability by investor-owned utilities and reduce rates for San Diegans. For example, in November 2023, the Council adopted San Diego Resolution R-315214 (Nov. 14,2023) calling on the CPUC to implement improvements to oversight of gas and electric rates.
E. The Office of the City Attorney prepared this Resolution based on the information provided by City staff, including information provided by affected third parties and verified by City staff, with the understanding that this information is complete and accurate. -PAGE 3 OF 4- City Council 24 – 7 7/7/2026
(R-2026-521)
ACTION ITEMS
Be it resolved by the Council ofthe City of San Diego:
1. The Council declares its full support for the Utility Affordability and Accountability Legislative Package, as referenced in Recital B.
2. The Council requests the City' s Government Affairs Department staff transmit this Resolution to the City' s state lobbyists and other appropriate individuals to ensure this Resolution is received by state representatives and made part of the official record of support for the Utility Affordability and Accountability Legislative Package, as referenced in Recital B.
APPROVED IEATHER FERBERT, City Attorney
By
Alm a Rob b in s
l el4 3
Deputy City Attorney
AR:nja
April 23,2026
Or. Dept: Council District - 9
Do c . No . 4406721
I certify that the Council of the City of San Diego adopted this Resolution at a meeting held on JUN I 6 2026
DIANA J .S. FUENTES
City Clerk
puty City Cl k
Approved: Gllý( 1
(date) TODD GLORIA, Mayor
Vetoed :
(date) TODD GLORIA, Mayor
-PAGE 4 OF 4- City Council 24 – 8 7/7/2026
Passed by the Council of The City of San Diego on JUN 1 62026 ,by the following vote:
Co u n c ilm e m be rs Ye a s Nays No t Pre s e n t Re cu s e d Joe LaCava
Jennifer Campbell
Stephen Whitburn
Henry L. Foster 111
Marni von Wilpert
Ke n t Le e
Raul A. Campillo
Viv ia n Mo re n o
Se a n Elo -Riv e ra
0. Date of final passage JUN 1 8 2026
(Please note: When a resolut ion is approved by the Mayor, the date of final passage is the date the approved resolut ion was returned to the Office of the City Clerk.) AUTHENTICATED BY:
TODD GLORIA
Mayor of The City of San Diego, California.
(Sea l)
DIANA I.S. FUENTES
City Clerk of The City of San Diego, California.
By , Deputy U
Office of the City Clerk, San Diego, California
Resolution Number R- 31G629
City Council 24 – 9 7/7/2026