Santa Ana City Council
August 4, 2026

AGREEMENT WITH ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC. TO PROVIDE

HVAC SERVICE, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS AT VARIOUS CITY FACILITIES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 4th day of August, 2026 by and between ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc., a California corporation (“Consultant”), and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (“City”).

RECITALS
A. On April 30, 2026, the City issued Request for Proposals No. 26-021A, by which it sought Consultants to provide HVAC Service, Maintenance and Repairs at Various City Facilities on behalf of the City of Santa Ana’s Public Works Agency.

B. Consultant submitted a responsive proposal that was among those selected by the City.

Consultant represents that it is able and willing to provide the services described in the scope of work that was included in RFP No. 26-021A and attached as Exhibit A. C. Consultant was selected as one of three (3) vendors which qualified for this engagement.

Only those consultants approved by the City Council shall be eligible to be engaged by the City for these services.

D. In undertaking the performance of this Agreement, Consultant represents that it is knowledgeable in its field and that any services performed by Consultant under this Agreement will be performed in compliance with such standards as may reasonably be expected from a professional consulting firm in the field.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual and respective promises, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows:

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
On an on-call basis, and the City’s sole discretion, Consultant shall perform during the term of this Agreement, the tasks and obligations including all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidental customary work required to fully and adequately complete the services described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

2. COMPENSATION
a. City neither warrants nor guarantees any minimum or maximum compensation.

Consultant shall be paid only for actual services performed under this Agreement at the rates and charges identified in Exhibit B. Consultant is one of three (3) consultants selected under RFP 26-021A. The total compensation for these services provided by all such consultants selected under RFP 26-021A shall not exceed the shared aggregate amount of One Million Eight Hundred Eighty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fifteen ($1,882,915) during the term of the Agreement, including any extension periods.

Exhibit 1
City Council 26 – 9 8/4/2026

b. Payment by City shall be made within forty-five (45) days following receipt of proper invoice evidencing work performed, subject to City accounting procedures. City and Consultant agree that all payments due and owing under this Agreement shall be made through Automated Clearing House (ACH) transfers. Consultant agrees to execute the City’s standard ACH Vendor Payment Authorization and provide required documentation. Upon verification of the data provided, the City will be authorized to deposit payments directly into Consultant’s account(s) with financial institutions.

Payment need not be made for work which fails to meet the standards of performance set forth in the Recitals which may reasonably be expected by City.

3. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on the date first written above for a one (1) year term with the option for the City to grant up to four (4), one-year extensions, exercisable by a writing by the City Manager and the City Attorney, unless terminated earlier in accordance with Section 16, below.

4. PREVAILING WAGES
Contractor is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on “public works” and “maintenance” projects. If the services being performed are part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Contractor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.

5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Consultant shall, during the entire term of this Agreement, be construed to be an independent Consultant and not an employee of the City. This Agreement is not intended nor shall it be construed to create an employer-employee relationship, a joint venture relationship, or to allow the City to exercise discretion or control over the professional manner in which Consultant performs the services which are the subject matter of this Agreement; however, the services to be provided by Consultant shall be provided in a manner consistent with all applicable standards and regulations governing such services. Consultant shall pay all salaries and wages, employer's social security taxes, unemployment insurance and similar taxes relating to employees and shall be responsible for all applicable withholding taxes.

6. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS
This Agreement creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, and other documents or works of City Council 26 – 10 8/4/2026

authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement.

Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any and all Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were provided to Consultant by the City. City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents and Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at City’s sole risk.

7. INSURANCE
Insurance Requirements are attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated by reference.

8. INDEMNIFICATION
Consultant agrees to defend, and shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, contractors, special counsel, and representatives from liability: (1) for personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief arising out of claims for personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage, which may arise from the negligent operations of the Consultant, its subcontractors, agents, employees, or other persons acting on its behalf which relates to the services described in section 1 of this Agreement; and (2) from any claim that personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief is due by reason of the terms of or effects arising from this Agreement. This indemnity and hold harmless agreement applies to all claims for damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of the events referred to in this Section or by reason of the terms of, or effects, arising from this Agreement. The Consultant further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and pay all costs for the defense of the City, including fees and costs for special counsel to be selected by the City, regarding any action by a third party challenging the validity of this Agreement, or asserting that personal injury, damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief due to personal or property rights arises by reason of the terms of, or effects arising from this Agreement. City may make all reasonable decisions with respect to its representation in any legal proceeding. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant’s services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.

9. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNIFICATION
Consultant shall defend and indemnify the City, its officers, agents, representatives, and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States’ letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in the work product or documents provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to this Agreement.

10. RECORDS
City Council 26 – 11 8/4/2026

Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any services, expenditures, and disbursements charged to the City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of the City to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement.

11. CONFIDENTIALITY
If Consultant receives from the City information which due to the nature of such information is reasonably understood to be confidential and/or proprietary, Consultant agrees that it shall not use or disclose such information except in the performance of this Agreement, and further agrees to exercise the same degree of care it uses to protect its own information of like importance, but in no event less than reasonable care. “Confidential Information” shall include all nonpublic information. Confidential information includes not only written information, but also information transferred orally, visually, electronically, or by other means. Confidential information disclosed to either party by any subsidiary and/or agent of the other party is covered by this Agreement. The foregoing obligations of non-use and nondisclosure shall not apply to any information that (a) has been disclosed in publicly available sources; (b) is, through no fault of the Consultant disclosed in a publicly available source; (c) is in rightful possession of the Consultant without an obligation of confidentiality; (d) is required to be disclosed by operation of law; or (e) is independently developed by the Consultant without reference to information disclosed by the City.

12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CLAUSE
a. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interests and shall not have interests, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with performance of services specified under this Agreement.
b. No immediate family members of either the Mayor, City Council Member, or any appointed City Official, including appointed board and commission members, as defined under the City’s Municipal Code, whose position with the City shall award or influence the award of this Agreement, or any competing contract or amendment thereof, shall be employed in any capacity by the Consultant or have any other direct or indirect financial benefit or interest in this Agreement.
c. The section also prohibits the awarding of any agreement, contract, grant, or any amendment to those awards, to any former full-time employee for one-year from date of employee separation except for any CalPERS retiree as authorized by City Council resolution.

City Council 26 – 12 8/4/2026

d. The Consultant must comply with all conflict of interest laws, ordinances, and regulations now in effect or hereafter to be enacted during the term of this Agreement. The Consultant warrants that it is not now aware of any facts which conflict with the prohibitions defined above. If the Consultant hereafter becomes aware of any facts that might reasonably be expected to create a conflict of interest, it must immediately make full written disclosure of such facts to the City. Full written disclosure must include, but is not limited to, identification of all persons implicated and a complete description of all relevant circumstances. Failure to comply with the provisions of this paragraph will be a material breach of this Agreement.
e. Consultant covenants that none of its directors, officers, employees, or agents shall participate in selecting or administrating any subcontract supported (in whole or in part) by City funds stemming from the Agreement where the awarding of the subcontract has any direct or indirect financial benefit or interest to any individual, as defined in subsections (d) and (e) above.

13. NON-DISCRIMINATION
Consultant shall not discriminate because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, gender, medical conditions, genetic information, or military and veteran status, age, national origin, ancestry, or disability, as defined and prohibited by applicable law, in the recruitment, selection, teaching, training, utilization, promotion, termination or other employment related activities or any services provided under this Agreement. Consultant affirms that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations.

14. EXCLUSIVITY AND AMENDMENT
This Agreement represents the complete and exclusive statement between the City and Consultant, and supersedes any and all other agreements, oral or written, between the parties. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and any attachments hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. This Agreement may not be modified except by written instrument signed by the City and by an authorized representative of Consultant. The parties agree that any terms or conditions of any purchase order or other instrument that are inconsistent with, or in addition to, the terms and conditions hereof, shall not bind or obligate Consultant or the City. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which is not embodied herein.

15. ASSIGNMENT
Inasmuch as this Agreement is intended to secure the specialized services of Consultant, Consultant may not assign, transfer, delegate, or subcontract any interest herein without the prior written consent of the City and any such assignment, transfer, delegation or subcontract without the City's prior written consent shall be considered null and void. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the City’s ability to have any of the services which are the subject to this City Council 26 – 13 8/4/2026

Agreement performed by City personnel or by other Consultants retained by City.

16. TERMINATION
This Agreement may be terminated by the City upon thirty (30) days written notice of termination. In such event, Consultant shall be entitled to receive and the City shall pay Consultant compensation for all services performed by Consultant prior to receipt of such notice of termination, subject to the following conditions:
a. As a condition of such payment, the Executive Director may require Consultant to deliver to the City all work product(s) completed as of such date, and in such case such work product shall be the property of the City unless prohibited by law, and Consultant consents to the City's use thereof for such purposes as the City deems appropriate.
b. Payment need not be made for work which fails to meet the standard of performance specified in the Recitals of this Agreement.

17. WAIVER
No waiver of breach, failure of any condition, or any right or remedy contained in or granted by the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing and signed by the party waiving the breach, failure, right or remedy. No waiver of any breach, failure or right, or remedy shall be deemed a waiver of any other breach, failure, right or remedy, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing so specifies.

18. JURISDICTION - VENUE
This Agreement has been executed and delivered in the State of California and the validity, interpretation, performance, and enforcement of any of the clauses of this Agreement shall be determined and governed by the laws of the State of California. Both parties further agree that Orange County, California, shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought or arise out of, in connection with or by reason of this Agreement.

19. PROFESSIONAL LICENSES
Consultant shall, throughout the term of this Agreement, maintain all necessary licenses, permits, approvals, waivers, and exemptions necessary for the provision of the services hereunder and required by the laws and regulations of the United States, the State of California, the City of Santa Ana and all other governmental agencies. Consultant shall notify the City immediately and in writing of its inability to obtain or maintain such permits, licenses, approvals, waivers, and exemptions. Said inability shall be cause for termination of this Agreement.

20. FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Contractor shall comply with all applicable contractual provisions required by the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as set for the in 2 CRF Part 200, whether or not City Council 26 – 14 8/4/2026

expressly set forth in this document, including but not limited to those provisions set forth below.

Notwithstanding, anything to the contrary herein, including without limitation, the language in this Agreement, the actual language contained in federal statutes, federal regulations, federally promulgated materials and state statutes, shall control in determining any obligations under federal law in the event of a conflict with any terms, language or provisions contained in this Agreement.

Contractor shall not perform any act, fail to perform any act, or refuse to comply with any requests, which would cause City to be in violation of the federal terms and conditions. a. Federal Regulations – Recipient must comply with the government cost principles, uniform administrative requirements and audit requirements for federal grant program housed within Title 2, Part 180 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
b. Debarment and Suspension – As required by Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, and 2 CFR §200.214 and codified in 2 CFR Part 200, Recipient must provide protection against waste, fraud, and abuse by debarring or suspending those persons deemed irresponsible in their dealings with the Federal government.
c. Audit Records – With respect to all matters covered by this agreement all records shall be made available for audit and inspection by CITY, the grant agency and/or their duly authorized representatives for a period of three (3) years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report by the City of Santa Ana. For a period of three years after final delivery hereunder or until all claims related to this Agreement are finally settled, whichever is later, Recipient shall preserve and maintain all documents, papers and records relevant to the services provided in accordance with this Agreement, including the Attachments hereto. For the same time period, Recipient shall make said documents, papers and records available to City and the agency from which City received grant funds or their duly authorized representative(s), for examination, copying, or mechanical reproduction on or off the premises of Recipient, upon request during usual working hours.
d. Reports – Recipient shall provide to City all records and information requested by City for inclusion in quarterly reports and such other reports or records as City may be required to provide to the agency from which City received grant funds or other persons or agencies. e. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Handicapped) – All recipients of federal funds must comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (The Act). Therefore, the federal funds recipient pursuant to the requirements of The Act hereby gives assurance that no otherwise qualified handicapped person shall, solely by reason of handicap be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subject to discrimination, including discrimination in employment, in any program or activity that receives or benefits from federal financial assistance. The Recipient agrees it will ensure that requirements of The Act shall be included in the agreements with and be binding on all of its contractors, subcontractors, assignees or successors.
f. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 – (ADA) Recipient must comply with all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as applicable.

City Council 26 – 15 8/4/2026

g. Political Activity – None of the funds, materials, property, or services provided directly or indirectly under this agreement shall be used for any partisan political activity, or to further the election or defeat of any candidate for public office, or otherwise in violation of the provisions of the "Hatch Act".
h. No Lobbying – Recipient will comply with all applicable lobbying prohibitions and laws, including those found in the Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. 1352, et seq.), and agrees that none of the funds provided under this award may be expended by the Recipient to pay any person to influence, or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any federal action concerning the award or renewal of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
i. Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity – Recipient will comply, and all its contractors (or subrecipients) will comply, with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1964, as amended; Subtitle A, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990); Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended; Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, as amended; Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970, as amended; Section 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912, as amended; Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended; Department of Justice Non-Discrimination Regulations, 28 CFR Part 42, Subparts C, D, E, and G; and Department of Justice regulations on disability discrimination, 28 CFR Part 35 and 39. In the event a Federal or State court, Federal or State administrative agency, or the Recipient makes a finding of discrimination after a due process hearing on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability against a recipient of funds, the Recipient will forward a copy of the findings to CITY which will, in turn, submit the findings to the Office of Civil Rights, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. If applicable, recipient will comply with the equal opportunity clause in 41 C.F.R. 60-1.4(b) in accordance with Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order No. 11375.
j. Equal Employment Opportunity – Recipient will comply, and all its contractors (or subrecipients) will comply, with all requirements of the Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, entitled “Equal Employment Opportunity,” as amended by Executive Order 11375 of October 13, 1967, and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (41 CFR chapter 60), as applicable.
k. Public Contracts Code – Recipient will comply, and all its contractors (or subrecipients) will comply, with all requirements of the California Public Contract Code Section 10295.3, as applicable.
l. Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act – Recipient will comply, and all its contractors (or subrecipients) will comply, with all requirements of the Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act (40 U.S.C. 3145) as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 3), as applicable. m. Davis-Bacon Act – Recipient will comply, and all its contractors (or subrecipients) will City Council 26 – 16 8/4/2026

comply, with all requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3141-3144 and 3146-3148) as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5), as applicable. n. Work Hours and Safety – Recipient will comply, and all its contractors (or subrecipients) will comply, with all requirements of Sections 103 and 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3702 and 3704) as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5), as applicable.
o. Clean Air Act –

1. The contractor agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.

2. The contractor agrees to report each violation to CITY and understands and agrees that the CITY will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency Regional Office.

3. The contractor agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract exceeding $150,000 financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FEMA. p. Energy and Conservation – Recipient will comply, and all its contractors (or subrecipients) will comply, with all requirements of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201), as applicable.
q. Waste Disposal – Recipient will comply, and all its contractors (or subrecipients) will comply, with all requirements of Section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as applicable. r. Patent Rights – Recipient agrees that the Department of Homeland Security shall have the authority to seek patent rights for any process, product, invention or discovery developed and paid for with funding through this Agreement based on the requirements of 37 CFR§ 401 and any other implementing regulations, as applicable.
s. Copyright – Recipient may copyright any books, publications or other copyrightable materials developed in the course of or under this Agreement. However, the federal awarding agency, State Administrative Agency (SAA) and City reserve a royalty-free, non-exclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, for federal government, SAA and/or City purpose:
(1) the copyright in any work developed through this Agreement; and (2) any rights of copyright to which the subcontractor purchases ownership with support through this grant. The Federal government’s, SAA’s and City’s rights identified above must be conveyed to the publisher and the language of the publisher’s release form must ensure the preservation of these rights. t. Equal Employment in Construction Contracts – Pursuant to Equal Employment Opportunity requirements of 41 C.F.R. 60-1.4(b) in accordance with Executive Order 11246 as City Council 26 – 17 8/4/2026

amended by Executive Order No. 11375, as to any construction contract thereunder, if applicable, during the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:
(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.

The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following:

Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
(2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.
(3) The contractor will not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because such employee or applicant has inquired about, discussed, or disclosed the compensation of the employee or applicant or another employee or applicant. This provision shall not apply to instances in which an employee who has access to the compensation information of other employees or applicants as a part of such employee's essential job functions discloses the compensation of such other employees or applicants to individuals who do not otherwise have access to such information, unless such disclosure is in response to a formal complaint or charge, in furtherance of an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action, including an investigation conducted by the employer, or is consistent with the contractor's legal duty to furnish information.
(4) The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice to be provided advising the said labor union or workers' representatives of the contractor's commitments under this section, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
(5) The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. (6) The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records, and accounts by the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders.

City Council 26 – 18 8/4/2026

(7) In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts or federally assisted construction contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.
(8) The contractor will include the portion of the sentence immediately preceding paragraph (1) and the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (8) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the administering agency may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance.
u. Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment – Recipient will comply, and all its contractors (or subrecipients) will comply, with all requirements under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR §200.216. Recipient will comply with FEMA Policy 405-143-1, Prohibitions on Expending FEMA Award Funds on Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services (Interim), which prohibits grant recipients and subrecipients from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to procure or obtain, extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain, or to enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.

As described in Public Law 115-232, section 889, covered telecommunications equipment:
(1) Telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities). (2) For the purpose of public safety, security of government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, and other national security purposes, video surveillance and telecommunications equipment produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities). (3) Telecommunications or video surveillance services produced by such entities or using such equipment.
(4) Telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced or provided by an entity that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of the National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reasonably believes to be an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of a covered foreign country.
v. Domestic Preferences for Procurements/Subcontracts – Recipient will comply, and all its contractors (or subrecipients) will comply, with all requirements under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR City Council 26 – 19 8/4/2026

§200.322.

Recipient shall comply with the federal and recipient standards in the award of any subcontracts.

For purposes of this Agreement, subcontracts shall include but not be limited to purchase agreements, rental or lease agreements, third party agreements, consultant service contracts and construction subcontracts.

Recipient shall ensure that the terms of this Agreement with the CITY are incorporated into all Subcontractor Agreements. The recipient shall submit all Subcontractor Agreements to the CITY for review prior to the release of any funds to the subcontractor. The recipient shall withhold funds to any subcontractor agency that fails to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and their respective Subcontractor Agreement.
(1) Recovered Materials
Recipient shall make maximum use of products containing recovered materials that are EPA-designated items unless the product cannot be acquired competitively within a timeframe providing for compliance with the contract performance schedule; Meeting contract performance requirements; or at a reasonable price.

Information about this requirement, along with the list of EPA-designated items, is available at EPA’s Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines webpage:
https://www.epa.gov/smm/comprehensive-procurement-guideline-cpg-program. The Contractor also agrees to comply with all other applicable requirements of Section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
(2) Domestic Preference for Procurements
Recipient should, to the greatest extent practicable, provide a preference for the purchase, acquisition, or use of goods, products, or materials produced in the United States. This includes, but is not limited to iron, aluminum, steel, cement, and other manufactured products.

For purposes of this clause:

Produced in the United States means, for iron and steel products, that all manufacturing processes, from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States.

Manufactured products mean items and construction materials composed in whole or in part of non-ferrous metals such as aluminum; plastics and polymer-based products such as polyvinyl chloride pipe; aggregates such as concrete; glass, including optical fiber; and lumber.
w. Termination for Cause and Convenience – Should recipient fail for any reason to comply with the contractual obligations of this agreement within the time specified by this Agreement, the CITY reserves the right to terminate the Agreement, reserving all rights under state and federal law.

City Council 26 – 20 8/4/2026

x. Contractual/Legal Remedies for Breach of Contract – Should recipient fail for any reason to comply with the contractual obligations of this Agreement and/or willfully, knowingly or negligently breach any term, condition or requirement of the agreement, City may impose sanctions including but not limited to damages (liquidated damages and or penalties) and /or any other remedy available pursuant to the Agreement of the laws then in effect.

21. NOTICE
Any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be properly given if delivered in person or mailed by first class or certified mail, postage prepaid, or sent by fax or other telegraphic communication in the manner provided in this Section, to the following persons:

To City:

City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30)
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702-1988
With courtesy copies to:

Executive Director, Public Works Agency
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-21)
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, California 92702
To Consultant:

A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party. Thereafter, any communication shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. If sent by mail, communication shall be effective or deemed to have been given three (3) days after it has been deposited in the United States mail, duly registered or certified, with postage prepaid, and addressed as set forth above. If sent by fax, communication shall be effective or deemed to have been given twenty-four (24) hours after the time set forth on the transmission report issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, addressed as set forth above. For purposes of calculating these time frames, weekends, federal, state, County or City holidays shall be excluded.

22. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc.

Attn: Connor McDonough, Project Manager
888 E. Walnut St.

Pasadena, CA 91101
City Council 26 – 21 8/4/2026

a. Each undersigned represents and warrants that its signature herein below has the power, authority and right to bind their respective parties to each of the terms of this Agreement, and shall indemnify City fully, including reasonable costs and attorney’s fees, for any injuries or damages to City in the event that such authority or power is not, in fact, held by the signatory or is withdrawn. b. All Exhibits referenced herein and attached hereto shall be incorporated as if fully set forth in the body of this Agreement.
[signatures on following page]

City Council 26 – 22 8/4/2026

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year first above written.

ATTEST: CITY OF SANTA ANA
Jennifer L. Hall Alvaro Nuñez
City Clerk City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

SONIA R. CARVALHO CONSULTANT:

City Attorney
By:

Kyle Nellesen
Assistant City Attorney (title)
Tax ID#
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

Rodolfo Rosas, P.E.

Acting Executive Director
Public Works Agency
By:

Title:

Rodolfo Rosas Digitally signed by Rodolfo Rosas
DN: cn=Rodolfo Rosas, email=rrosas@santaana.org, c=US
Date: 2026.07.21 15:29:14 -07'00'
City Council 26 – 23 8/4/2026

EXHIBIT A
City Council 26 – 24 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 25 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 26 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 27 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 28 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 29 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 30 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 31 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 32 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 33 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 34 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 35 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 36 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 37 8/4/2026

EXHIBIT B
City Council 26 – 38 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 39 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 40 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 41 8/4/2026

EXHIBIT C
City Council 26 – 42 8/4/2026
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the agreement, the following insurance coverages:

MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Consultant shall maintain limits of insurance coverage in the following minimum amounts and shall be at least as broad as:

Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence and $4,000,000 aggregate.

Automobile Liability (AL): Insurance Services Office Form CA 00 01 covering Code 1 (any auto), with combined single limits of $1,000,000. In the event Consultant does not maintain commercial automobile liability insurance, City will accept evidence of personal automobile insurance, provided that such policy is endorsed for business use and provides coverage with a minimum limit of $1,000,000. Required policy limits can be met with primary and umbrella/excess insurance policies.

Workers’ Compensation (WC): as required by the State of California, with statutory limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident, per employee, per policy for bodily injury or disease. This requirement can be waived if Consultant has no employees. Consultant attests that its workers’ compensation coverage extends to all persons who will be working with the City under the agreed scope of services.

Professional Liability (PL): with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 aggregate.

If Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to City.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

1. CGL and AL policies: City of Santa Ana, its City Council, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant including materials, parts, equipment, and personnel furnished in connection with such work or operations.

2. CGL, AL, and WC policies: Insurance company(ies) agrees to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its City Council, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers for losses paid under the terms of any policy which arise from work performed by Consultant for City.

3. All required insurance policies: For any claims related to this contract, Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary and any insurance maintained by City, its City Council, its officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers shall not contribute with it.

4. All required insurance policies: A severability of interest provision must apply for all the additional insureds, ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability.

5. Each insurance policy required herein shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, suspended, voided, reduced in coverage or in limits, non-renewed by the carrier, or materially changed except after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to City. Ten (10) City Council 26 – 43 8/4/2026
days prior written notice shall be provided to City for policy cancellation or non-renewal due to non-payment.

6. Certificate Holder on each Evidence of Insurance certificate shall be: City of Santa Ana, Attention: Nadia Orozco, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-11, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The name and location of the project or event should be included in the Description of Operations section of each certificate.

Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. City may require Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state of California with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to City.

Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish City with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to Entity before work begins. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

Claims Made Policies
If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:

1. The retroactive date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of work.

2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least three (3) years after completion of work.

3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective date, Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of three (3) years after completion of work.

Subcontractors
Consultant shall require and verify that all sub-contractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Consultant shall ensure that City is an additional insured on insurance required from sub-contractors.

Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

City Council 26 – 44 8/4/2026
Exhibit 2
City Council 26 – 45 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 46 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 47 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 48 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 49 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 50 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 51 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 52 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 53 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 54 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 55 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 56 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 57 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 58 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 59 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 60 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 61 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 62 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 63 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 64 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 65 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 66 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 67 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 68 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 69 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 70 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 71 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 72 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 73 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 74 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 75 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 76 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 77 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 78 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 79 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 80 8/4/2026
Exhibit 3
City Council 26 – 81 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 82 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 83 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 84 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 85 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 86 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 87 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 88 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 89 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 90 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 91 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 92 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 93 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 94 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 95 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 96 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 97 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 98 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 99 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 100 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 101 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 102 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 103 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 104 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 105 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 106 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 107 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 108 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 109 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 110 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 111 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 112 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 113 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 114 8/4/2026
City Council 26 – 115 8/4/2026
Public Works Agency
www.santa-ana.gov/pw
Item # 27
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
August 4, 2026
TOPIC: Resolution Requesting the California State Legislature to Amend Assembly Bill 645 Speed Safety System Pilot Program

AGENDA TITLE
Resolution Requesting the California State Legislature to Amend Assembly Bill 645 to Authorize the City of Santa Ana to Establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a Resolution requesting that the California State Legislature amend Assembly Bill 645 (Friedman) to authorize eligibility for the City of Santa Ana to establish and operate a Speed Safety System Pilot Program pending future Council approval.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SANTA ANA REQUESTING THAT THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE AMEND ASSEMBLY BILL 645 (FRIEDMAN) TO AUTHORIZE THE

CITY OF SANTA ANA TO ESTABLISH A SPEED SAFETY SYSTEM PILOT

PROGRAM
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
At the regular meeting of April 21, 2026, the City Council discussed a CouncilmemberRequested Item (Exhibit 1) and directed staff to draft a resolution requesting the California State Legislature to amend Assembly Bill (AB) 645 authorizing and enabling Santa Ana to establish and implement a Speed Safety System Pilot Program. Enacted in 2023, AB 645 (Exhibit 2) authorized six (6) California jurisdictions to establish automated Speed Safety System Pilot Programs through January 1, 2032. In 2024, Senate Bill (SB) 1297 (Exhibit 3) expanded that authority to include the City of Malibu after the State Legislature determined Malibu faced unique roadway safety challenges warranting participation in the pilot program.

Through the City’s adopted policy and implementation framework, including the Vision Zero Action Plan, the General Plan Mobility Element, and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the City is investing significantly in street safety education, traffic infrastructure enhancements, and targeted enforcement to curb speeding and unsafe driving behaviors on the City’s roadways. Despite these initiatives, excessive vehicle speed remains the primary factor in fatal and severe injury traffic collisions in Santa City Council 27 – 1 8/4/2026
Resolution Requesting Legislature to Amend Assembly Bill 645 Speed Safety System Pilot Program
August 4, 2026

Ana, a factor similarly experienced by communities throughout California. These factors, as well as several recent high-profile excessive speed-related crashes that resulted in multiple fatalities, prompted the City Council to direct staff to prepared a City Resolution (Exhibit 4) requesting authorization from the State Legislature to enable the City to participate in the pilot program.

BACKGROUND
On October 13, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 645, establishing California's first Automated Speed Safety System Pilot Program. The Legislature found that excessive speed is a major contributing factor in fatal and serious injury collisions and that automated speed enforcement, when combined with engineering improvements and public education, can significantly reduce speeding, improve traffic safety, and prevent traffic-related fatalities and injuries. The Legislature further found that automated enforcement can improve consistency and fairness in traffic enforcement while reducing reliance on discretionary traffic stops. These findings form the policy basis for the pilot program. AB 645 authorizes only the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish pilot programs through January 1, 2032.

Following the tragic deaths of four Pepperdine University students on Pacific Coast Highway in October 2023, the City of Malibu sought authority from the Legislature to establish its own automated speed enforcement (ASE) program. In September 2024, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 1297, authorizing Malibu to deploy up to five automated speed safety systems. In approving the legislation, the Legislature recognized Malibu's documented history of fatal and serious injury crashes, unique roadway characteristics, and limitations associated with traditional police enforcement.

SB 1297 establishes a clear legislative precedent that additional California cities with demonstrated safety needs may be added to the pilot program through subsequent legislation.

According to the California Office of Traffic Safety, Santa Ana ranks among California's highest population cities for pedestrian and bicyclist injury collisions. With population of over 310,000 residents, dense urban roadway network, adopted policy framework, and similar traffic safety challenges, Santa Ana is well-positioned to pursue similar legislative authority for a local ASE pilot program.

This need is further intensified as a result of two recent fatal speed-related collisions in the City. In April 2025, five young adults were killed in a single-vehicle crash on Segerstrom Avenue after the vehicle lost control while traveling at excessive speeds (estimated over 70 mph) on a street segment with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Less than four months later, another fatal speed-related collision occurred approximately one-half mile away on Segerstrom Avenue near Bear Street that was City Council 27 – 2 8/4/2026
Resolution Requesting Legislature to Amend Assembly Bill 645 Speed Safety System Pilot Program
August 4, 2026

also attributable to reckless driving and excessive speed on a street segment with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour.

These tragedies underscore the continuing fatality risks associated with excessive speeding and reinforce the need for additional speed management strategies beyond traditional enforcement.

AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT
Automated Speed Safety Systems utilize radar or laser technology together with highresolution cameras to detect speeding vehicles and photograph the rear license plate.

Citations issued under AB 645 are civil, not criminal, in nature and include administrative review and appeal rights.

Unlike traditional enforcement, automated systems provide continuous enforcement at locations with documented speeding and crash histories. Operation of the system and enforcement activities are managed by Public Works or Transportation agencies, not law enforcement agencies.

If the City is authorized to establish a pilot program, the number and locations of Speed Safety Systems would be evaluated and recommended based on documented collision history, speeding data, statutory requirements, and engineering analysis. Any proposed camera locations would be presented to the City Council as part of a future implementation plan.

AB 645 also contains robust privacy protections, including:
Capturing of rear license plate images only
Prohibition on facial recognition technology
Strict data retention requirements
Confidentiality of photographs and administrative records Independent oversight and auditing requirements
Restrictions prohibiting data sharing except as required by law.

AB 645 recognizes that traditional traffic enforcement has historically produced disparate impacts in some communities and identifies automated speed enforcement as a means of providing more consistent, objective, and predictable enforcement.

The legislation also requires:
Public outreach
Public review of system policies
Civil liberties assessments
Privacy protections
Low-income fine reductions
City Council 27 – 3 8/4/2026
Resolution Requesting Legislature to Amend Assembly Bill 645 Speed Safety System Pilot Program
August 4, 2026

Diversion programs for qualifying individuals
Annual reporting regarding program effectiveness and equity.

If authorized, participation in the pilot program would provide Santa Ana with an additional evidence-based safety tool that complements ongoing investments in roadway improvements.

Early results from cities whose automated speed enforcement programs are either fully operational (San Francisco, 33 cameras) or actively enforcing (Oakland, 35 cameras) have shown approximately a 73% and 72% reduction, respectively, in excessive speeding (10 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit) at camera locations.

NEXT STEPS IF APPROVED
If the City Council adopts the proposed Resolution, the next steps are:

1. Transmit the Resolution to Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, Senator Tom Umberg, the Governor's Office, the League of California Cities, and other appropriate legislative representatives requesting legislation to authorize Santa Ana's participation in the Speed Safety System Pilot Program.

2. Coordinate with the City's legislative advocates to support the introduction and advancement of legislation during the 2027 legislative session.

3. Monitor the progress of the legislation and provide periodic updates to the City Council regarding significant milestones.

4. If legislation is enacted, return to the City Council with a comprehensive implementation plan that includes:
o A proposed Speed Safety System Use Policy;
o A Speed Safety System Impact Report;
o Public outreach and community engagement plan;
o Recommended camera locations based on collision and speed data; o Procurement strategy and vendor selection;
o Detailed capital, operating cost estimates and funding strategy, o Enforcement strategy; and
o An implementation schedule consistent with AB 645 requirements.

5. Following City Council approval of the implementation plan, complete procurement, conduct the required public information campaign, install the systems, and begin the statutory 60-day warning period before issuing citations, as required by AB 645.

If the Legislature adds Santa Ana to the Automated Speed Safety System Pilot Program, the City Council would still have full discretion to decide whether, and how, to implement a program through future approvals.

City Council 27 – 4 8/4/2026
Resolution Requesting Legislature to Amend Assembly Bill 645 Speed Safety System Pilot Program
August 4, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3), the proposed pilot program is exempt from further review. Adoption of a Resolution requesting the California State Legislature to amend AB 645 to authorize the City of Santa Ana to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program has no potential to result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.

Any future implementation of an automated Speed Safety System would be subject to separate environmental review, as appropriate, prior to approval.

ANTICIPATED FUTURE FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this action. If the State Legislature amends Assembly Bill 645, adding Santa Ana to the Automated Speed Safety System Pilot Program, then staff will have to perform additional due diligence and develop comprehensive plans to implement a fully compliant program. Other cities participating in the pilot program identified the following costs:

Long Beach Glendale Los Angeles Malibu
Proposed Deployment 36 Cameras 18 Cameras 125 Cameras 5 Cameras Year 1 Start-up Costs $835,000 $900,000 $500,000 $2,086,895 Annual Operating Costs $1,630,000 $1,000,000 $7,950,000 $1,010,000 San
Francisco San Jose Oakland
Proposed Deployment 56 Cameras 66 Cameras 36 Cameras
Year 1 Start-up Costs n/a n/a $450,000
Annual Operating Costs $3,100,000 $3,400,000 $2,500,000 Furthermore, staff would have to fully assess and determine staff impacts and enforcement costs.

Staff has reviewed implementation efforts currently underway in participating peer cities to provide an initial assessment of implementation considerations for Santa Ana. Among the current California pilot jurisdictions, Long Beach and Glendale (both in the deployment phase) provide the strongest and most comparable implementation models for Santa Ana. Malibu provides the most current example of implementation costs.

Both Long Beach and Glendale administer their programs through their Public Works/Traffic Engineering departments using a turnkey vendor model that includes camera equipment, maintenance, software, and enforcement processing. Based on information provided by these agencies, staff estimates that a future Santa Ana program, assuming six initial enforcement locations (12 cameras) as prioritized in the Vision Zero Plan, would have an initial start-up cost of approximately $2 million and City Council 27 – 5 8/4/2026
Resolution Requesting Legislature to Amend Assembly Bill 645 Speed Safety System Pilot Program
August 4, 2026

estimated annual operating costs of approximately $1.5 to $2.0 million, including vendor services, staffing, and administrative expenses.

While these cities provide the most comparable implementation models for estimating program costs, neither city has available data for citation revenue but have indicated that citation revenue is expected to offset operating costs. San Francisco is currently the only California pilot jurisdiction reporting revenue from paid enforcement. The City of San Francisco has reported citation revenue of $1.2M in the first month of paid enforcement with a 56 camera system.

Based on San Francisco's first month of paid enforcement, a six-location (12 camera) program in Santa Ana has the potential to generate $257,000 in the first month of enforcement if violation rates and collection rates were comparable. Actual revenues would depend on local traffic volumes, speeding behavior, payment rates, program maturity, and the effectiveness of the program in reducing speeding over time. The program’s efficacy, if successful, will likely limits the City’s ability to offset the on-going expenditures associated with the program.

EXHIBIT(S)

1. Councilmember Bacerra Requested Item

2. Assembly Bill 645 Text

3. Senate Bill 1297 Text

4. Resolution No. 2026-XXX
Submitted By: Rodolfo Rosas, P.E., Acting Executive Director of Public Works Agency Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
City Council 27 – 6 8/4/2026

CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho

CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez

CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M-31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org Councilmember-Requested Item Report
DATE
April 21, 2026
TOPIC
Resolution requesting that the State Legislature amend AB 645 to allow the City of Santa Ana to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program as soon as possible.

COUNCILMEMBER-REQUESTED ITEM TITLE
Discuss and consider directing the City Manager to direct City staff to draft and bring back a resolution for Council consideration that would be sent to Assemblymember Avelino Valencia and Senator Tom Umberg, requesting that the State Legislature amend AB 645 (Friedman) to allow the City of Santa Ana to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program as soon as possible.

DISCUSSION
State Assembly Bill AB 645 was approved on October 13, 2023 to permit selected cities to establish a Speed Safety Pilot Program to run until January 2032. The initial measure included six cities: Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco.

AB 645 authorizes these six cities to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program if the system meets specified requirements. A speed safety system, as defined by AB 645, is “a fixed or mobile radar or laser system or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of speed laws and obtains a clear photograph of a speeding vehicle’s license plate.” Automated enforcement technology, such as cameras and radar/laser sensors, are used to detect vehicles traveling over the speed limit and take a photo of the rear license plate to issue citations.

The bill requires a participating city to adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy and a Speed Safety System Impact Report before implementing the program. The bill requires the participating city to engage in a public information campaign at least 30 days before implementation of the program, including information relating to when the systems would begin detecting violations and where the systems would be located. The bill requires a participating city to issue warning notices rather than notices of violations for violations detected within the first 60 calendar days of the program.

City Council 27 – 7 8/4/2026
Councilmember Requested Item

CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho

CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez

CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M-31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org AB 645 designates all photographic or administrative records, not including data about the number of violations issued or the speeds at which they were issued for, made by a system as confidential, and only authorizes public agencies to use and allow access to these records for the purpose of enforcing these violations and assessing the overall impact of the use of speed safety systems.

AB 645 requires a participating city to develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. The City of Los Angeles’ adopted Speed Safety System Use Policy states: “Access to Processed or Appended Data, including Restricted Appended Data, by local and federal law enforcement or other government agencies is not allowed except in the unusual case of a court order, subpoena, or other legal requirement. Such legal requirements do not supersede the retention guidelines noted above. LADOT (Los Angeles Department of Transportation) and its Contractors will not share specific citation events with local external law enforcement agencies and will only provide data as required by law. In the event that the Contractor improperly shares, discloses, or otherwise distributes data, LADOT reserves the right to immediately terminate the contract.” AB 645 specifies that any violation of a speed law recorded by a speed safety system authorized by these provisions is subject only to the provided civil penalties. The bill provides for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program. The bill requires any program created pursuant to these provisions to offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, as specified.

The bill requires a city or city and county participating in the pilot program to submit a report to evaluate the speed safety system to determine the systems impact on street safety where the system is utilized.

California cities not included in AB 645 are not permitted to use speed safety systems.

Following the tragic deaths of four Pepperdine students in October 2023, the Malibu City Council urgently pursued the ability to install automated speed enforcement cameras along a scenic but dangerous 21-mile stretch of Pacific Coast Highway. On September 27, 2024, SB 1297 (Allen) was signed into law. SB 1297 authorizes the City of Malibu to establish a Speed Safety Pilot Program, similar to what was authorized in AB 645, to utilize up to 5 speed safety systems on Pacific Coast Highway for speed enforcement.

On April 29, 2025, the Berkeley City Council adopted a resolution to send to Assemblymember Buffy Wicks and Senator Jesse Arreguín to request that the State Legislature amend AB 645 to allow the City of Berkeley to establish a Speed Safety Pilot Program.

The City of Santa Ana has seen traffic collisions resulting in serious injuries or fatalities for pedestrians and bicyclists remain unacceptably high for a number of years. Santa Ana ranks 4th out of the 15 highest population cities in California in injury/fatality traffic collisions for bicyclists and 5th for pedestrians, according to the California Office of Traffic Safety, 2023.

City Council 27 – 8 8/4/2026
Councilmember Requested Item

CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho

CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez

CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M-31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org On Saturday, April 5, 2025, a single-vehicle collision involving a tree on Segerstrom Avenue near Griset Place resulted in the loss of five lives. The vehicle was traveling westbound on Segerstrom Avenue, passing through the intersection with Townsend Street at a high rate of speed. The vehicle entered a bend in the road on Segerstrom Avenue and appeared to have lost control, striking a palm tree on the raised center median on the passenger side. Three females were ejected from the vehicle. The driver and two other passengers were trapped inside the vehicle and required extrication by OCFA using auto-extraction tools, commonly known as the “Jaws of Life.” Despite lifesaving efforts, the driver and three passengers were pronounced deceased at the scene. Another passenger who had been transported to a local hospital succumbed to her injuries a few days later.

Just over three months later, on July 31, 2025, and less than a half-mile away, a single-vehicle collision at Segerstrom Avenue and Bear Street resulted in one death and one injury when a vehicle was traveling westbound on Segerstrom Avenue from Bear Street at a high rate of speed and veered off the roadway, striking a tree and a cinder block wall.

The City of Santa Ana has established policy and taken steps to use modern technology to support safety and enforcement. In 2024, the Santa Ana City Council adopted the Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan and its goal to eliminate traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries in Santa Ana by 2040. Our city is ideally situated to implement and benefit from a Speed Safety Pilot Program. In conjunction with education and traffic engineering improvements, a Speed Safety Pilot Program can significantly reduce speeding, improve traffic safety, and prevent trafficrelated fatalities and injuries. Speed Safety Pilot Programs can also reduce the amount of and potential impacts of police traffic stops.

This item seeks to urge the State Legislature to amend AB 645 to allow the City of Santa Ana to establish a Speed Safety Pilot Program before 2032.

I therefore request that the City Council direct the City Manager to direct City staff to draft and bring back a resolution for Council consideration at the April 21 City Council meeting that would be sent to Assemblymember Avelino Valencia and Senator Tom Umberg, requesting that the State Legislature amend AB 645 (Friedman) to allow the City of Santa Ana to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program as soon as possible.

EXHIBITS

1. Text of AB 645

2. Text of SB 1297

SUBMITTED BY
Councilmember Phil Bacerra
City Council 27 – 9 8/4/2026
SHARE THIS: Date Published: 10/16/2023 02:00 PM
AB-645 Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program. (2023-2024) Assembly Bill No. 645
CHAPTER 808
An act to amend, repeal, and add Section 70615 of the Government Code, and to add and repeal Article 3 (commencing with Section 22425) of Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. [ Approved by Governor October 13, 2023. Filed with Secretary of State October 13, 2023. ]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSELʹS DIGEST
AB 645, Friedman. Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program.

Existing law establishes a basic speed law that prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent given the weather, visibility, traffic, and highway conditions and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property.

This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2032, the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program if the system meets specified requirements. The bill would require a participating city or city and county to adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy and a Speed Safety System Impact Report before implementing the program, and would require the participating city or city and county to engage in a public information campaign at least 30 days before implementation of the program, including information relating to when the systems would begin detecting violations and where the systems would be utilized. The bill would require a participating city or city and county to issue warning notices rather than notices of violations for violations detected within the first 60 calendar days of the program. The bill would also require a participating city or city and county to develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. The bill would designate all photographic or administrative records, not including data about the number of violations issued or the speeds at which they were issued for, made by a system as confidential, and would only authorize public agencies to use and allow access to these records for specified purposes.

This bill would specify that any violation of a speed law recorded by a speed safety system authorized by these provisions would be subject only to the provided civil penalties. The bill would, among other things, provide for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program. The bill would require any program created pursuant to these provisions to offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, as specified. The bill would require a city or city and county participating in the pilot program to submit a report to evaluate the speed safety system to determine the system’s impact on street safety and economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized.

Existing law establishes a $25 filing fee for specified appeals and petitions.

Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Text - AB-645 Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_i... 1 of 11 4/12/2026, 3:10 PM
City Council 27 – 10 8/4/2026
This bill would require a $25 filing fee for an appeal challenging a notice of violation issued as a result of a speed safety system until January 1, 2032.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Speed is a major factor in traffic collisions that result in fatalities or injuries. (b) State and local agencies employ a variety of methods to reduce speeding, including traffic engineering, education, and enforcement.
(c) Traffic speed enforcement is critical to efforts in California to reduce factors that contribute to traffic collisions that result in fatalities or injuries.
(d) However, traditional enforcement methods have had a well-documented disparate impact on communities of color, and implicit or explicit racial bias in police traffic stops puts drivers of color at risk. (e) Additional tools, including speed safety systems, are available to assist cities and the state in addressing excessive speeding and speed-related crashes.
(f) Speed safety systems offer a high rate of detection, and, in conjunction with education and traffic engineering, can significantly reduce speeding, improve traffic safety, and prevent traffic-related fatalities and injuries, including roadway worker fatalities.
(g) Multiple speed safety system programs implemented in other states and cities outside of California have proven successful in reducing speeding and addressing traffic safety concerns. (h) The Transportation Agency’s “CalSTA Report of Findings: AB 2363 Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force,” issued in January 2020, concluded that international and domestic studies show that speed safety systems are an effective countermeasure to speeding that can deliver meaningful safety improvements, and identified several policy considerations that speed safety system program guidelines could consider. (i) In a 2017 study, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) analyzed studies of speed safety system programs, and found they offered significant safety improvements in the forms of reduction in mean speeds, reduction in the likelihood of speeding more than 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, and reduction in the likelihood that a crash involved a severe injury or fatality. The same study recommended that all states remove obstacles to speed safety system programs to increase the use of this proven approach, and notes that programs should be explicitly authorized by state legislation without operational and location restrictions. (j) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) gives speed safety systems the maximum 5-star effectiveness rating. NHTSA issued speed enforcement camera systems operational guidelines in 2008, and is expected to release revised guidelines in 2021 that should further inform the development of state guidelines. (k) Speed safety systems can advance equity by improving reliability and fairness in traffic enforcement while making speeding enforcement more predictable, effective, and broadly implemented, all of which helps change driver behavior.
(l) Enforcing speed limits using speed safety systems on streets where speeding drivers create dangerous roadway environments is a reliable and cost-effective means to prevent further fatalities and injuries.

SEC. 2. Section 70615 of the Government Code is amended to read:
70615. The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):

Bill Text - AB-645 Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_i... 2 of 11 4/12/2026, 3:10 PM
City Council 27 – 11 8/4/2026
(a) An appeal of a local agency’s decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4. (b) An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agency’s decision regarding a parking violation.
(c) An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation. (d) A petition under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code challenging a law enforcement agency’s inclusion of a person’s information in a shared gang database.
(e) An appeal under Section 22428 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated speed violation, as defined in Section 22425 of the Vehicle Code. (f) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2032, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 3. Section 70615 is added to the Government Code, to read:
70615. The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(a) An appeal of a local agency’s decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4. (b) An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agency’s decision regarding a parking violation.
(c) An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation. (d) A petition under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code challenging a law enforcement agency’s inclusion of a person’s information in a shared gang database.
(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2032.

SEC. 4. Article 3 (commencing with Section 22425) is added to Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, to read:

Article 3. Speed Safety System Pilot Program
22425. (a) As used in this article, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Automated speed violation” means a violation of a speed law detected by a speed safety system operated pursuant to this article.
(2) “Designated jurisdiction” means any of the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, or Long Beach, or the City and County of San Francisco.
(3) A person is “indigent” if either of the following conditions is met:
(A) The person meets the income criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 68632 of the Government Code.
(B) The person receives public benefits from a program listed in subdivision (a) of Section 68632 of the Government Code.
(4) “Local department of transportation” means a designated jurisdiction’s department of transportation or, if a designated jurisdiction does not have a department of transportation, their administrative division, including, but not limited to, a public works department that administers transportation and traffic matters under this code.
(5) “School zone” means an area described by subdivision (b) of Section 40802. (6) “Speed safety system” or “system” means a fixed or mobile radar or laser system or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of speed laws and obtains a clear photograph of a speeding vehicle’s license plate.
(b) (1) A designated jurisdiction may establish a program for speed enforcement that utilizes a speed safety system, to be operated by a local department of transportation, in the following areas:

Bill Text - AB-645 Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_i... 3 of 11 4/12/2026, 3:10 PM
City Council 27 – 12 8/4/2026
(A) On a street meeting the standards of a safety corridor under Section 22358.7. (B) On a street a local authority has determined to have had a high number of incidents for motor vehicle speed contests or motor vehicle exhibitions of speed. For the purposes of this provision, a high number of incidents shall be calls for law enforcement to respond to the area for at least four separate incidences of a motor vehicle speed contest or motor vehicle exhibition of speed within the last two years before the placement of the speed safety system.
(C) School zones, subject to subdivision (c).
(2) The number of speed safety systems operated by a designated jurisdiction at any time shall be limited as follows:
(A) For a jurisdiction with a population over 3,000,000, as determined by the United States Census Bureau in the 2020 Census, no more than 125 systems.
(B) For a jurisdiction with a population between 800,000 and 3,000,000, inclusive, as determined by the United States Census Bureau in the 2020 Census, no more than 33 systems. (C) For a jurisdiction with a population of 300,000 up to 800,000, as determined by the United States Census Bureau in the 2020 Census, no more than 18 systems. (D) For a jurisdiction with a population of less than 300,000, as determined by the United States Census Bureau in the 2020 Census, no more than 9 systems.
(3) A speed enforcement program developed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall place the speed safety systems in locations that are geographically and socioeconomically diverse. The designated jurisdiction shall describe how it has complied with this provision in the Speed Safety System Impact Report described in subdivision (h). (c) If a speed safety system is deployed in a school zone and the school zone has a higher posted speed limit when children are not present, a designated jurisdiction may only enforce the school zone speed limit up to one hour before the regular school session begins, 10 minutes after school begins, one hour during lunch period, and up to one hour after regular school session concludes. For these school zones, flashing beacons activated by a time clock, other automatic device, or manual activation shall be installed on a school zone sign and be active to indicate the times during which the school zone speed limit is enforced with a speed safety system. (d) A speed safety system may be utilized pursuant to subdivision (b) if the program meets all of the following requirements:
(1) Clearly identifies the presence of the speed safety system by signs stating “Photo Enforced,” along with the posted speed limit no more than 500 feet before the placement of the system. The signs shall be visible to traffic traveling on the street from the direction of travel for which the system is utilized, and shall be posted at all locations as may be determined necessary by the Department of Transportation after consultation with the California Traffic Control Devices Committee.
(2) Identifies the streets or portions of streets that have been approved for enforcement using a speed safety system and the hours of enforcement on the municipality’s internet website, which shall be updated whenever the municipality changes locations of enforcement.
(3) Ensures that the speed safety system is regularly inspected, but no less than once every 60 days, and certifies that the system is installed and operating properly. Each camera unit shall be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and at least once per year by an independent calibration laboratory.

Documentation of the regular inspection, operation, and calibration of the system shall be retained at least 180 days after the date on which the system has been permanently removed from use. (4) Utilizes fixed or mobile speed safety systems that provide real-time notification to the driver when violations are detected.
(e) A speed safety system shall not be operated on any California state route, as defined in Section 231 of the Streets and Highways Code, including all freeways and expressways, United States highways, interstate highways, or any public road in unincorporated areas of any county where the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol has full responsibility and primary jurisdiction for the administration and enforcement of the laws, and for the investigation of traffic accidents, pursuant to Section 2400. (f) Prior to enforcing speed laws utilizing speed safety systems, the designated jurisdiction shall do both of the Bill Text - AB-645 Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_i... 4 of 11 4/12/2026, 3:10 PM
City Council 27 – 13 8/4/2026
following:
(1) Administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of the program, which shall include public announcements in major media outlets and press releases. The public information campaign shall include the draft Speed Safety System Use Policy pursuant to subdivision (g), the Speed Safety System Impact Report pursuant to subdivision (h), information on when systems will begin detecting violations, the streets, or portions of streets, where systems will be utilized, and the designated jurisdiction’s internet website, where additional information about the program can be obtained.

Notwithstanding the above, no further public announcement by the municipality shall be required for additional systems that may be added to the program.
(2) (A) Issue warning notices rather than notices of violation for violations detected by the speed safety systems during the first 60 calendar days of enforcement under the program. If additional systems are utilized on additional streets after the initial program implementation, the designated jurisdiction shall issue warning notices rather than notices of violation for violations detected by the new speed safety systems during the first 60 calendar days of enforcement for the additional streets added to the program. (B) A vehicle’s first violation within a designated jurisdiction for traveling 11 to 15 miles per hour over the posted speed limit shall be a warning notice.
(g) The governing body of a designated jurisdiction shall adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy before entering into an agreement regarding a speed safety system, purchasing or leasing equipment for a program, or implementing a program. The Speed Safety System Use Policy shall set forth the specific purpose for the system, the uses that are authorized, the rules and processes required to be followed by employees and contractors of the designated jurisdiction administering the system prior to its use, and the uses of the equipment and data collected that are prohibited. The policy shall identify the data or information that can be collected by the speed safety system and the individuals who can access or use the collected information, and the rules and processes related to the access, transfer, and use or use of the information. The policy shall also include provisions for protecting data from unauthorized access, data retention, public access, third-party data sharing, training, auditing, and oversight to ensure compliance with the Speed Safety System Use Policy. The Speed Safety System Use Policy shall be made available for public review, including, but not limited to, by posting it on the designated jurisdiction’s internet website at least 30 calendar days prior to adoption by the governing body of the designated jurisdiction.
(h) (1) The governing body of the designated jurisdiction also shall approve a Speed Safety System Impact Report prior to implementing a program. The Speed Safety System Impact Report shall include all of the following information:
(A) Assessment of potential impact of the speed safety system on civil liberties and civil rights and any plans to safeguard those public rights.
(B) Description of the speed safety system and how it works. (C) Fiscal costs for the speed safety system, including program establishment costs, ongoing costs, and program funding.
(D) If potential deployment locations of systems are predominantly in low-income neighborhoods, a determination of why these locations experience high fatality and injury collisions due to unsafe speed. (E) Locations where the system may be deployed and traffic data for these locations, including the address of where the cameras will be located.
(F) Proposed purpose of the speed safety system.
(2) The Speed Safety System Impact Report shall be made available for public review at least 30 calendar days prior to adoption by the governing body at a public hearing. (3) The governing body of the designated jurisdiction shall consult and work collaboratively with relevant local stakeholder organizations, including racial equity, privacy protection, and economic justice groups, in developing the Speed Safety System Use Policy and Speed Safety System Impact Report. (i) The designated jurisdiction shall develop uniform guidelines, consistent with the provisions of this section, for both of the following:
(1) The screening and issuing of notices of violation.

Bill Text - AB-645 Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_i... 5 of 11 4/12/2026, 3:10 PM
City Council 27 – 14 8/4/2026
(2) The processing and storage of confidential information and procedures to ensure compliance with confidentiality requirements.
(j) Notices of violation issued pursuant to this section shall include a clear photograph of the license plate and rear of the vehicle only, identify the specific section of the Vehicle Code violated, the camera location, and the date and time when the violation occurred. Notices of violation shall exclude images of the rear window area of the vehicle.
(k) The photographic evidence stored by a speed safety system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant under Division 10 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Evidence Code. (l) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of the California Public Records Act, or any other law, photographic or administrative records made by a system shall be confidential. Public agencies shall use and allow access to these records only for the purposes authorized by this article or to assess the impacts of the system. Data about the number of violations issued and the speeds at which they were issued is not considered an administrative record required not to be disclosed by this section.
(2) Confidential information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the administration of speed safety systems and enforcement of this article shall be held confidential, and shall not be used for any other purpose. Designated jurisdictions agents shall establish procedures to protect the confidentiality of these records consistent with Section 1808.47.
(3) Except for court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, or as provided in paragraph (4), the confidential records and evidence described in paragraphs (1) and (2) may be retained for up to 60 days after final disposition of the notice of violation. The designated jurisdiction may retain information that a vehicle has been cited and fined for a violation for up to three years. The municipality may adopt a retention period of less than 60 days in the Speed Safety System Use Policy. Administrative records described in paragraph (1) may be retained for up to 120 days after final disposition of the notice of violation.

Notwithstanding any other law, the confidential records and evidence shall be destroyed in a manner that maintains the confidentiality of any person included in the record or evidence. (4) Photographic evidence that is obtained from a speed safety system that does not result in the issuance of a notice of violation shall be destroyed within five business days after the photograph was first made. The use of facial recognition technology in conjunction with a speed safety system shall be prohibited. (5) Information collected and maintained by a designated jurisdiction to administer a program shall only be used to administer the program, and shall not be disclosed to any other persons, including, but not limited to, any other state or federal government agency or official for any other purpose, except as required by state or federal law, court order, or in response to a subpoena in an individual case or proceeding. (m) Notwithstanding subdivision (l), the registered owner or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to review and obtain a copy of the photographic evidence of the alleged violation.
(n) A contract between the designated jurisdiction and a manufacturer or supplier of speed safety systems shall allow the local authority to purchase materials, lease equipment, and contract for processing services from the manufacturer or supplier based on the services rendered on a monthly schedule or another schedule agreed upon by the municipality and contractor. The contract shall not allow for payment or compensation based on the number of notices of violation issued, or as a percentage of revenue generated, from the use of the system. The contract shall include a provision that all data collected from the speed safety systems is confidential, and shall prohibit the manufacturer or supplier of the contracted speed safety system from sharing, repurposing, or monetizing collected data, except as specifically authorized in this article. The designated jurisdiction shall oversee, maintain control, and have the final decision over all enforcement activities, including the determination of when a notice of violation should be issued.
(o) Notwithstanding subdivision (n), a designated jurisdiction may contract with a vendor for the processing of notices of violation after an employee of a designated jurisdiction has issued a notice of violation. The vendor shall be a separate legal and corporate entity from, and not related to or affiliated in any manner with, the manufacturer or supplier of speed safety systems used by the designated jurisdiction. Any contract between the designated jurisdiction and a vendor to provide processing services may include a provision for the payment of compensation based on the number of notices of violation processed by the vendor. (p) (1) A speed safety system at a specific location shall be operated for no more than 18 months after installation of a system, unless one of the following thresholds has been met:

Bill Text - AB-645 Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_i... 6 of 11 4/12/2026, 3:10 PM
City Council 27 – 15 8/4/2026
(A) A reduction in the 85th percentile speed of vehicles compared to data collected before the system was in operation.
(B) A 20-percent reduction in vehicles that exceed the posted speed limit by 10 miles per hour or more compared to data collected before the system was in operation. (C) A 20-percent reduction in the number of violators who received two or more violations at the location since the system became operational.
(2) (A) Paragraph (1) does not apply if a designated jurisdiction adds traffic-calming measures to the street. “Traffic-calming measures” include, but are not limited to, all of the following:
(i) Bicycle lanes.
(ii) Chicanes.
(iii) Chokers.
(iv) Curb extensions.
(v) Median islands.
(vi) Raised crosswalks.
(vii) Road diets.
(viii) Roundabouts.
(ix) Speed humps or speed tables.
(x) Traffic circles.
(xi) Flashing beacons for school zone speed limits.
(B) A designated jurisdiction may continue to operate a speed safety system with a fixed or mobile vehicle speed feedback sign while traffic-calming measures are being planned or constructed, but shall halt their use if construction has not begun within two years.
(3) If the percentage of violations has not decreased by the metrics identified pursuant to paragraph (1) within one year after traffic-calming measures have completed construction, a designated jurisdiction shall either construct additional traffic-calming measures or cease operation of the system on that street. (q) The speed safety system, to the extent feasible, shall be angled and focused so as to only capture photographs of speeding violations and shall not capture identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, or pedestrians.
(r) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 21455.6, the designated jurisdictions listed herein may use automated enforcement systems and photo radar for speed enforcement consistent with this article. 22426. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of any speed law pursuant to this chapter that is recorded by a speed safety system authorized pursuant to Section 22425 shall be subject only to a civil penalty, as provided in subdivision (c), and shall not result in the department suspending or revoking the privilege of a violator to drive a motor vehicle or in a violation point being assessed against the violator. (b) The speed safety system shall capture images of the rear license plate of vehicles that are traveling 11 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit and notices of violation shall only be issued to registered owners of those vehicles based on that evidence.
(c) A civil penalty shall be assessed as follows:
(1) Fifty dollars ($50) for driving at a speed of 11 to 15 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. (2) One hundred dollars ($100) for driving at a speed of 16 to 25 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. (3) Two hundred dollars ($200) for driving at a speed of 26 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit, unless paragraph (4) applies.
(4) Five hundred dollars ($500) for driving at a speed of 100 miles per hour or more.

Bill Text - AB-645 Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_i... 7 of 11 4/12/2026, 3:10 PM
City Council 27 – 16 8/4/2026
(d) A civil penalty shall not be assessed against an authorized emergency vehicle. (e) The notice of violation shall be in writing and issued to the registered owner of the vehicle within 15 calendar days of the date of the violation. The notice of violation shall include all of the following information:
(1) The violation, including reference to the speed law that was violated, the speed of the vehicle, the speed limit for the road on which the violation occurred, and verification of the most recent calibration of the system in accordance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 22425. (2) The date, approximate time, and location where the violation occurred. (3) The vehicle license number and the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle. (4) A statement that payment is required to be made no later than 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of the notice of violation, or that the violation may be contested pursuant to Section 22427. (5) The amount of the civil penalty due for that violation and the procedures for the payment of the civil penalty or for contesting the notice of violation.
(6) An affidavit of nonliability, and information of what constitutes nonliability, information as to the effect of executing the affidavit, and instructions for returning the affidavit to the processor. If the affidavit of nonliability is returned to the processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of violation, together with proof of a written lease or rental agreement between a bona fide rental company, as defined in Section 1939.01 of the Civil Code, or a personal vehicle sharing program, as defined in Section 11580.24 of the Insurance Code, and its customer that identifies the renter or lessee, the processing agency shall serve or mail a notice of violation to the renter or lessee identified in the affidavit of nonliability. If the affidavit of nonliability is returned to the processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of violation, together with proof of a copy of a police report indicating the vehicle had been stolen at the time of the violation, the processing agency shall not subject the registered owner to a civil violation. (7) A proof of service consistent with Section 1013a of the Code of Civil Procedure. (f) Mobile radar or laser systems shall not be used until at least two years after the installation of the first fixed radar or laser system unless the mobile radar or laser system is kept at a fixed location. (g) (1) Revenues derived from any program utilizing a speed safety system for speed limit enforcement shall first be used to recover program costs. Program costs include, but are not limited to, the construction of trafficcalming measures for the purposes of complying with subdivision (p) of Section 22425, the installation of speed safety systems, the adjudication of violations, and reporting requirements as specified in this section. (2) Jurisdictions shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for traffic-calming measures in order to remain authorized to participate in the pilot program, and shall annually expend not less than the annual average of expenditures for traffic-calming measures during the 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018–19 fiscal years.

For purposes of this subdivision, in calculating average expenditures on traffic-calming measures, restricted funds that may not be available on an ongoing basis, including those from voter-approved bond issuances or tax measures, shall not be included. Any excess revenue shall be used for traffic-calming measures within three years of the end of the fiscal year in which the excess revenue was received. If traffic-calming measures are not planned or constructed after the third year, excess revenue shall revert to the Active Transportation Program established pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2380) of the Streets and Highways Code, to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission pursuant to Section 2381 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(h) A person shall not be accessed a civil penalty if they are subject to criminal penalties for the same act. (i) A speed safety system may only be in operation for five years, or until January 1, 2032, whichever date is sooner.
22427. (a) No later than 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of a notice of violation, the recipient may request an initial review of the notice by the issuing agency. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, electronically, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. If, following the initial review, the issuing agency is satisfied that the violation did not occur, or that extenuating circumstances make cancellation of the notice of violation appropriate in the interest of justice, the issuing agency shall cancel the notice of violation. The issuing agency shall advise the processing agency, if any, of the cancellation. The issuing agency or the processing agency shall mail the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice within 60 days of Bill Text - AB-645 Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_i... 8 of 11 4/12/2026, 3:10 PM
City Council 27 – 17 8/4/2026
receipt of the recipient’s request for an initial review, and, if cancellation of the notice does not occur following that review, include a reason for that denial, notification of the ability to request an administrative hearing, and notice of the procedures adopted by the designated jurisdiction for the administrative hearing, including for waiving prepayment of the civil penalty based upon an inability to pay pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b).
(b) (1) If the person contesting the notice of violation is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may, no later than 21 calendar days following the mailing of the results of the issuing agency’s initial review, request an administrative hearing of the violation. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, electronically, or in person.
(2) The person requesting an administrative hearing shall pay the amount of the civil penalty to the processing agency. The issuing agency shall adopt a written procedure to allow a person to request an administrative hearing without payment of the civil penalty upon satisfactory proof of an inability to pay the amount due. (3) The administrative hearing shall be held within 90 calendar days following the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed 21 calendar days.
(c) The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
(1) The person requesting a hearing shall have the choice of a hearing upon written declaration, video conference, or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the issuing agency. (2) If the person requesting a hearing is an unemancipated minor, that person shall be permitted to appear at a hearing or admit responsibility for the automated speed violation without the appointment of a guardian. The processing agency may proceed against the minor in the same manner as against an adult. (3) The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the issuing agency and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of contested automated speed violations. (4) (A) The issuing agency’s governing body or chief executive officer of the designated jurisdiction shall appoint or contract with qualified independent examiners or administrative hearing providers that employ qualified independent examiners to conduct the administrative hearings. Examiners shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity necessary to conduct a fair and impartial review, and shall meet the minimum requirements specified in subparagraph (B). The examiner shall be separate and independent from the notice of violation issuing and processing functions. An examiner’s continued employment, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits shall not, directly or indirectly, be linked to the amount of civil penalties upheld by the examiner or the number or percentage of violations upheld by the examiner. (B) (i) Examiners shall have a minimum of 20 hours of training. The examiner, unless an employee of the designated jurisdiction, is responsible for the costs of the training. The issuing agency may reimburse the examiner for those costs. Training may be provided through any of the following:
(I) An accredited college or university.
(II) A program conducted by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (III) A program conducted by the American Arbitration Association or a similar organization. (IV) Any program approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, including a program developed and provided by, or for, the agency. (ii) Training programs shall include topics relevant to the administrative hearing, including, but not limited to, applicable laws and regulations, enforcement procedures, due process, evaluation of evidence, hearing procedures, and effective oral and written communication. Upon the approval of the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, up to 12 hours of relevant experience may be substituted for up to 12 hours of training. Up to eight hours of the training requirements described in this subparagraph may be credited to an individual, at the discretion of the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, based upon training programs or courses described in this subparagraph that the individual attended within the last five years.
(5) The employee of the designated jurisdiction who issues a notice of violation shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing. To establish a violation, the issuing agency shall not be required to Bill Text - AB-645 Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_i... 9 of 11 4/12/2026, 3:10 PM
City Council 27 – 18 8/4/2026
produce any evidence other than, in proper form, the notice of violation or copy thereof, including the photograph of the vehicle’s license plate, and information received from the Department of Motor Vehicles identifying the registered owner of the vehicle. The documentation in proper form shall be prima facie evidence of the violation. If the designated jurisdiction meets its initial burden the recipient of the notice of violation may present any evidence and argument in defense.
(6) The examiner’s final decision following the administrative hearing may be personally delivered to the person by the examiner or sent by first-class mail within 60 days of the date of the conclusion of the administrative hearing.
(7) Following a determination by the examiner that a person has committed the violation, the examiner may, consistent with the written guidelines established by the issuing agency, allow payment of the civil penalty in installments, or an issuing agency may allow for deferred payment or payments in installments, if the person provides evidence satisfactory to the examiner or the issuing agency, as the case may be, of an inability to pay the civil penalty in full. If authorized by the governing body of the issuing agency, the examiner may permit the performance of community service in lieu of payment of the civil penalty. (8) If a notice of violation is dismissed following an administrative hearing, any civil penalty, if paid, shall be refunded by the issuing agency within 30 days.
22428. (a) Within 30 days after personal delivery or mailing of the final decision described in subdivision (c) of Section 22427, the contestant may seek review by filing an appeal to the superior court, where the case shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the processing agency’s file in the case on appeal shall be lodged by the designated agency at the designated agency’s expense and be received into evidence. A copy of the notice of violation shall be admitted into evidence as prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the notice. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be served in person or by certified first-class mail with return receipt upon the processing agency by the appellant. For purposes of computing the 30-day period, Section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable. A proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case. (b) The fee for filing the notice of appeal shall be as provided in Section 70615 of the Government Code. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the designated jurisdiction shall lodge its administrative record for the case with the court within 15 calendar days. The court shall notify the appellant of the appearance date by mail or personal delivery. The court shall retain the fee under Section 70615 of the Government Code regardless of the outcome of the appeal. If the appellant prevails, this fee and any payment of the civil penalty shall be promptly refunded by the issuing agency in accordance with the judgment of the court. (c) The conduct of the hearing on appeal under this section is a subordinate judicial duty that may be performed by a commissioner or other subordinate judicial officer at the direction of the presiding judge of the court. (d) If a notice of appeal of the examiner’s decision is not filed within the period set forth in subdivision (a), the decision shall be deemed final.
(e) If the civil penalty has not been paid and the final decision is adverse to the appellant, the processing agency may, promptly after the decision becomes final, proceed to collect the civil penalty under Section 22426. 22429. (a) A designated jurisdiction shall offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, to perform community service in lieu of paying the penalty for a speed system violation. (b) A designated jurisdiction shall offer the ability for indigent speed safety system violation recipients to pay applicable fines and penalties over a period of time under a payment plan with monthly installments of no more than twenty-five dollars ($25) and shall limit the processing fee to participate in a payment plan to five dollars ($5) or less.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a designated jurisdiction shall reduce the applicable fines and penalties by 80 percent for indigent persons, and by 50 percent for individuals up to 250 percent above the federal poverty level.
(d) The person may demonstrate that they are indigent or make up to 250 percent above the poverty level or less by providing either of the following information, as applicable:
(1) Proof of income from a pay stub or another form of proof of earnings, such as a bank statement, that shows that the person meets the income criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 68632 of the Government Code, subject to review and approval by the processing agency or its designee. The processing agency or its designee shall not unreasonably withhold its approval.

Bill Text - AB-645 Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_i... 10 of 11 4/12/2026, 3:10 PM
City Council 27 – 19 8/4/2026
(2) Proof of receipt of benefits under the programs described in subdivision (a) of Section 68632 of the Government Code, including, but not limited to, an electronic benefits transfer card or another card, subject to review and approval by the processing agency. The processing agency or its designee shall not unreasonably withhold its approval.
22430. Any designated jurisdiction that used speed safety systems shall, on or before March 1 of the fifth year in which the system has been implemented, submit to its governing body and the transportation committees of the Legislature, consistent with Section 9795 of the Government Code, an evaluation of the speed safety system in their respective jurisdictions to determine the system’s impact on street safety and the system’s economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. The report shall be made available on the internet websites of the respective jurisdictions and shall include all of the following information:
(a) Data, at least three months before and at least six months after implementation of each system, on the number and proportion of vehicles speeding from 11 to 15 miles per hour over the legal speed limit, inclusive, from 16 to 25 miles per hour over the legal speed limit, inclusive, 26 miles per hour over the legal speed limit, and for every violator traveling at a speed of 100 miles per hour or greater. Data shall also be collected on the average speed of vehicles and 85th percentile speed of vehicles. To the extent feasible, the data should be collected at the same time of day, day of week, and location. (b) The number of notices of violation issued under the program by month and year, the corridors or locations where violations occurred, and the number of vehicles with two or more violations in a monthly period and a yearly period.
(c) Data, before and after implementation of the system, on the number of traffic collisions that occurred where speed safety systems are used, relative to citywide data, and the transportation mode of the parties involved. The data on traffic collisions shall be categorized by collision type and injury severity, such as property damage only, complaint of pain, other visible injury, or severe or fatal injury. (d) The number of violations paid, the number of delinquent violations, and the number of violations for which an initial review is requested. For the violations in which an initial review was requested, the report shall indicate the number of violations that went to initial review, administrative hearing, and de novo hearing, the number of notices that were dismissed at each level of review, and the number of notices that were not dismissed after each level of review.
(e) The costs associated with implementation and operation of the speed safety systems, and revenues collected by each jurisdiction.
(f) A racial and economic equity impact analysis, developed in collaboration with local racial justice and economic equity stakeholder groups. The analysis shall include the number of notices of violations issued to indigent individuals, the number of notices of violations issued to individuals of up to 250 percent above the poverty line, and the number of violations issued to each ZIP Code.
22431. This article shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2032, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 5. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 4 of this act, which adds Section 22425 to the Vehicle Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:

To protect the privacy interests of persons who are issued notices of violation under a speed safety systems pilot program, the Legislature finds and declares that the photographic or administrative records generated by the program shall be confidential, and shall be made available only to alleged violators and to governmental agencies solely for the purpose of enforcing these violations and assessing the impact of the use of speed safety systems, as required by this act.

SEC. 6. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances with traffic speed enforcement in the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco.

Bill Text - AB-645 Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_i... 11 of 11 4/12/2026, 3:10 PM
City Council 27 – 20 8/4/2026
SHARE THIS: Date Published: 09/30/2024 02:00 PM
SB-1297 The City of Malibu’s speed safety system pilot program. (2023-2024) Senate Bill No. 1297
CHAPTER 631
An act to amend Section 70615 of the Government Code, and to add and repeal Article 4 (commencing with Section 22435) of Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. [ Approved by Governor September 27, 2024. Filed with Secretary of State September 27, 2024. ]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSELʹS DIGEST
SB 1297, Allen. The City of Malibu’s speed safety system pilot program.

Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2032, the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish a speed safety system pilot program if the system meets specified requirements. Existing law requires a participating city or city and county to adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy and a Speed Safety System Impact Report before implementing the program, and requires the participating city or city and county to engage in a public information campaign at least 30 days before implementation of the program, including information relating to when the systems would begin detecting violations and where the systems would be utilized. Existing law requires a participating city or city and county to issue warning notices rather than notices of violations for violations detected within the first 60 calendar days of the program. Existing law also requires a participating city or city and county to develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. Existing law designates all photographic or administrative records, not including data about the number of violations issued or the speeds at which they were issued for, made by a system as confidential, and would only authorize public agencies to use and allow access to these records for specified purposes.

This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2032, the City of Malibu to establish a similar program for speed enforcement that utilizes up to 5 speed safety systems on the Pacific Coast Highway.

Existing law specifies that any violation of a speed law recorded by a speed safety system authorized by the Speed Safety System Pilot Program provisions would be subject only to the provided civil penalties. Existing law provides, among other things, for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program. Existing law requires any program created pursuant to these provisions to offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, as specified. Existing law requires a city or city and county participating in the pilot program to submit a report to evaluate the speed safety system to determine the system’s impact on street safety and the economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. Existing law requires revenues derived from any program to first be used to cover program costs, including, among other things, the construction of traffic-calming measures, as specified.

Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Text - SB-1297 The City of Malibu’s speed safety system pilot... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id... 1 of 10 4/12/2026, 3:11 PM
City Council 27 – 21 8/4/2026
This bill would require the City of Malibu to also implement the above provisions if it establishes the speed safety system program on the Pacific Coast Highway. The bill would additionally require the City of Malibu to enter into an agreement with the Department of Transportation regarding the use of any excess revenue for traffic-calming measures on the Pacific Coast Highway, in the City of Malibu.

Existing law establishes a $25 filing fee for specified appeals and petitions.

This bill would require a $25 filing fee for an appeal challenging a notice of violation issued as a result of the City of Malibu’s speed safety system program until January 1, 2032.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Malibu.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) On October 17, 2023, a driver speeding at 104 miles per hour on the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in the City of Malibu lost control of their vehicle and killed four university students standing on the side of the highway. (b) Since 2010, 59 people have been killed in vehicle accidents along the PCH in the City of Malibu. (c) Crash data from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department shows that, in 2023, there were 127 propertydamage collisions, 93 injury collisions, and seven deaths in the City of Malibu. (d) The City of Malibu suffers uniquely from collisions. Over the past five years, the City of Malibu has had the highest number of fatalities and serious injuries resulting from vehicle crashes among similarly sized cities.

Compared to all cities of every size, the City of Malibu is ranked 91st highest out of 482 cities despite being one of the smallest cities in the state.
(e) The City of Malibu’s traffic environment is uniquely hazardous with few sidewalks or separated bike lanes, limited parking, regionally popular beaches, and commercial establishments adjacent to a major highway with few safe ways to cross.
(f) To address its traffic safety problem, the City of Malibu has contracted for additional traffic patrols from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and, more recently, from the Department of the California Highway Patrol. (g) The City of Malibu would like to obtain additional traffic patrols and is willing to pay for them, but staffing shortages limit the ability of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department or the Department of the California Highway Patrol to provide them.

SEC. 2. Section 70615 of the Government Code, as amended by Section 2 of Chapter 808 of the Statutes of 2023, is amended to read:
70615. The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(a) An appeal of a local agency’s decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4. (b) An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agency’s decision regarding a parking violation.
(c) An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation. (d) A petition under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code challenging a law enforcement agency’s inclusion of a person’s information in a shared gang database.
(e) An appeal under Section 22428 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding a civil Bill Text - SB-1297 The City of Malibu’s speed safety system pilot... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id... 2 of 10 4/12/2026, 3:11 PM
City Council 27 – 22 8/4/2026
penalty for an automated speed violation, as defined in Section 22425 of the Vehicle Code. (f) An appeal under Section 22438 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated speed violation, as defined in Section 22435 of the Vehicle Code. (g) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2032, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 3. Article 4 (commencing with Section 22435) is added to Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, to read:

Article 4. The City of Malibu’s Speed Safety Pilot Program 22435. (a) As used in this article, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Automated speed violation” means a violation of a speed law detected by a speed safety system operated pursuant to this article.
(2) “Designated jurisdiction” means the City of Malibu. (3) A person is “indigent” if either of the following conditions is met:
(A) The person meets the income criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 68632 of the Government Code.
(B) The person receives public benefits from a program listed in subdivision (a) of Section 68632 of the Government Code.
(4) “Local department of transportation” means the City of Malibu’s department that administers transportation and traffic matters under this code.
(5) “Speed safety system” or “system” means a fixed or mobile radar or laser system or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of speed laws and obtains a clear photograph of a speeding vehicle’s license plate.
(b) The designated jurisdiction may establish a program for speed enforcement that utilizes up to five speed safety systems, to be operated by the local department of transportation, on the Pacific Coast Highway. (c) The speed safety system may be utilized pursuant to subdivision (b) if the program meets all of the following requirements:
(1) The designated jurisdiction continues funding the additional traffic enforcement on the Pacific Coast Highway provided by the Department of the California Highway Patrol. (2) Clearly identifies the presence of the speed safety system by signs stating “Photo Enforced,” along with the speed limit signs with flashing beacons and speed feedback signs, no more than 500 feet before the placement of the system. The signs shall be visible to traffic traveling on the street from the direction of travel for which the system is utilized, and shall be posted at locations as may be determined necessary by the Department of Transportation after consultation with the California Traffic Control Devices Committee. (3) Identifies the street or portions of the street approved for enforcement using a speed safety system and the hours of enforcement on the municipality’s internet website, which shall be updated whenever the municipality changes locations of enforcement.
(4) Ensures that the speed safety system is regularly inspected no less than once every 60 days, and certifies that the system is installed and operating properly. Each camera unit shall be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and at least once per year by an independent calibration laboratory. Documentation of the regular inspection, operation, and calibration of the system shall be retained for at least 180 days after the date on which the system has been permanently removed from use. (5) Utilizes fixed or mobile speed safety systems that provide real-time notification to the driver when violations are detected.
(d) Prior to enforcing speed laws utilizing speed safety systems, the designated jurisdiction shall do both of the following:
(1) Administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of the program, which shall include public announcements in major media outlets and press releases. The public Bill Text - SB-1297 The City of Malibu’s speed safety system pilot... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id... 3 of 10 4/12/2026, 3:11 PM
City Council 27 – 23 8/4/2026
information campaign shall include the draft Speed Safety System Use Policy pursuant to subdivision (e), the Speed Safety System Impact Report pursuant to subdivision (f), information on when systems will begin detecting violations, the street, or portions of the street, where systems will be utilized, and the designated jurisdiction’s internet website, where additional information about the program can be obtained.

Notwithstanding the above, no further public announcement by the municipality shall be required for additional systems that may be added to the program.
(2) (A) Issue warning notices rather than notices of violation for violations detected by the speed safety system during the first 60 calendar days of enforcement under the program. (B) A vehicle’s first violation for traveling 11 to 15 miles per hour over the posted speed limit shall be a warning notice.
(e) The governing body of the designated jurisdiction shall adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy before entering into an agreement regarding a speed safety system, purchasing or leasing equipment for a program, or implementing a program. The Speed Safety System Use Policy shall set forth the specific purpose for the system, the uses that are authorized, the rules and processes required to be followed by employees and contractors of the designated jurisdiction administering the system prior to its use, and the uses of the equipment and data collected that are prohibited. The policy shall identify the data or information that can be collected by the speed safety system and the individuals who can access or use the collected information, and the rules and processes related to the access, transfer, and use or use of the information. The policy shall also include provisions for protecting data from unauthorized access, data retention, public access, third-party data sharing, training, auditing, and oversight to ensure compliance with the Speed Safety System Use Policy. The Speed Safety System Use Policy shall be made available for public review, including, but not limited to, by posting it on the designated jurisdiction’s internet website at least 30 calendar days prior to adoption by the governing body of the designated jurisdiction.
(f) (1) The governing body of the designated jurisdiction shall approve a Speed Safety System Impact Report prior to implementing a program. The Speed Safety System Impact Report shall include all of the following information:
(A) Assessment of the potential impact of the speed safety system on civil liberties and civil rights and any plans to safeguard those public rights.
(B) Description of the speed safety system and how it works. (C) Fiscal costs for the speed safety system, including program establishment costs, ongoing costs, and program funding.
(D) If potential deployment locations of systems are predominantly in low-income neighborhoods, a determination of why these locations experience high fatality and injury collisions due to unsafe speed. (E) Locations where the system may be deployed and traffic data for these locations, including the address where the cameras will be located.
(F) Proposed purpose of the speed safety system.
(2) The Speed Safety System Impact Report shall be made available for public review at least 30 calendar days prior to adoption by the governing body at a public hearing. (3) The governing body of the designated jurisdiction shall consult and work collaboratively with relevant local stakeholder organizations, including racial equity, privacy protection, and economic justice groups, in developing the Speed Safety System Use Policy and Speed Safety System Impact Report. (g) The designated jurisdiction shall develop uniform guidelines, consistent with the provisions of this section, for both of the following:
(1) The screening and issuing of notices of violation.
(2) The processing and storage of confidential information and procedures to ensure compliance with confidentiality requirements.
(h) Notices of violation issued pursuant to this section shall include a clear photograph of the license plate and rear of the vehicle only, identify the specific section of the Vehicle Code violated, the camera location, and the date and time when the violation occurred. Notices of violation shall exclude images of the rear window area of Bill Text - SB-1297 The City of Malibu’s speed safety system pilot... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id... 4 of 10 4/12/2026, 3:11 PM
City Council 27 – 24 8/4/2026
the vehicle.
(i) The photographic evidence stored by a speed safety system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant under Division 10 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Evidence Code. (j) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of the California Public Records Act, or any other law, photographic or administrative records made by a system shall be confidential. Public agencies shall use and allow access to these records only for the purposes authorized by this article or to assess the impacts of the system. Data about the number of violations issued and the speeds at which they were issued is not considered an administrative record required not to be disclosed by this section.
(2) Confidential information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the administration of speed safety systems and enforcement of this article shall be held confidential, and shall not be used for any other purpose. Designated jurisdictions’ agents shall establish procedures to protect the confidentiality of these records consistent with Section 1808.47.
(3) Except for court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, or as provided in paragraph (4), the confidential records and evidence described in paragraphs (1) and (2) may be retained for up to 60 days after final disposition of the notice of violation. The designated jurisdiction may retain information that a vehicle has been cited and fined for a violation for up to three years. The municipality may adopt a retention period of less than 60 days in the Speed Safety System Use Policy. Administrative records described in paragraph (1) may be retained for up to 120 days after final disposition of the notice of violation.

Notwithstanding any other law, the confidential records and evidence shall be destroyed in a manner that maintains the confidentiality of any person included in the record or evidence. (4) Photographic evidence that is obtained from a speed safety system that does not result in the issuance of a notice of violation shall be destroyed within five business days after the photograph was first made. The use of facial recognition technology in conjunction with a speed safety system shall be prohibited. (5) Information collected and maintained by a designated jurisdiction to administer a program shall only be used to administer the program, and shall not be disclosed to any other persons, including, but not limited to, any other state or federal governmental agency or official for any other purpose, except as required by state or federal law, court order, or in response to a subpoena in an individual case or proceeding. (k) Notwithstanding subdivision (j), the registered owner or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to review and obtain a copy of the photographic evidence of the alleged violation.
(l) A contract between the designated jurisdiction and a manufacturer or supplier of speed safety systems shall allow the local authority to purchase materials, lease equipment, and contract for processing services from the manufacturer or supplier based on the services rendered on a monthly schedule or another schedule agreed upon by the municipality and contractor. The contract shall not allow for payment or compensation based on the number of notices of violation issued, or as a percentage of revenue generated, from the use of the system. The contract shall include a provision that all data collected from the speed safety system is confidential, and shall prohibit the manufacturer or supplier of the contracted speed safety system from sharing, repurposing, or monetizing collected data, except as specifically authorized in this article. The designated jurisdiction shall oversee, maintain control, and have the final decision over all enforcement activities, including the determination of when a notice of violation should be issued.
(m) Notwithstanding subdivision (l), a designated jurisdiction may contract with a vendor for the processing of notices of violation after an employee of a designated jurisdiction has issued a notice of violation. The vendor shall be a separate legal and corporate entity from, and not related to or affiliated in any manner with, the manufacturer or supplier of speed safety systems used by the designated jurisdiction. Any contract between the designated jurisdiction and a vendor to provide processing services may include a provision for the payment of compensation based on the number of notices of violation processed by the vendor. (n) The speed safety system, to the extent feasible, shall be angled and focused so as to only capture photographs of speeding violations and shall not capture identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, or pedestrians.
(o) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 21455.6, the designated jurisdiction listed herein may use automated enforcement systems and photographic radar for speed enforcement consistent with this article. 22436. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of any speed law pursuant to this chapter that is recorded by Bill Text - SB-1297 The City of Malibu’s speed safety system pilot... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id... 5 of 10 4/12/2026, 3:11 PM
City Council 27 – 25 8/4/2026
a speed safety system authorized pursuant to Section 22435 shall be subject only to a civil penalty, as provided in subdivision (c), and shall not result in the department suspending or revoking the privilege of a violator to drive a motor vehicle or in a violation point being assessed against the violator. (b) The speed safety system shall capture images of the rear license plate of vehicles that are traveling 11 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit and notices of violation shall only be issued to registered owners of those vehicles based on that evidence.
(c) A civil penalty shall be assessed as follows:
(1) Fifty dollars ($50) for driving at a speed of 11 to 15 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. (2) One hundred dollars ($100) for driving at a speed of 16 to 25 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. (3) Two hundred dollars ($200) for driving at a speed of 26 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit, unless paragraph (4) applies.
(4) Five hundred dollars ($500) for driving at a speed of 100 miles per hour or more. (d) A civil penalty shall not be assessed against an authorized emergency vehicle. (e) The notice of violation shall be in writing and issued to the registered owner of the vehicle within 15 calendar days of the date of the violation. The notice of violation shall include all of the following information:
(1) The violation, including reference to the speed law that was violated, the speed of the vehicle, the speed limit for the road on which the violation occurred, and verification of the most recent calibration of the system in accordance with paragraph (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 22435. (2) The date, approximate time, and location where the violation occurred. (3) The vehicle license number and the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle. (4) A statement that payment is required to be made no later than 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of the notice of violation, or that the violation may be contested pursuant to Section 22437. (5) The amount of the civil penalty due for that violation and the procedures for the payment of the civil penalty or for contesting the notice of violation.
(6) An affidavit of nonliability, and information of what constitutes nonliability, information as to the effect of executing the affidavit, and instructions for returning the affidavit to the processor. If the affidavit of nonliability is returned to the processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of violation, together with proof of a written lease or rental agreement between a bona fide rental company, as defined in Section 1939.01 of the Civil Code, or a personal vehicle sharing program, as defined in Section 11580.24 of the Insurance Code, and its customer that identifies the renter or lessee, the processing agency shall serve or mail a notice of violation to the renter or lessee identified in the affidavit of nonliability. If the affidavit of nonliability is returned to the processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of violation, together with proof of a copy of a police report indicating the vehicle had been stolen at the time of the violation, the processing agency shall not subject the registered owner to a civil violation. (7) A proof of service consistent with Section 1013a of the Code of Civil Procedure. (f) Mobile radar or laser systems shall not be used until at least two years after the installation of the first fixed radar or laser system unless the mobile radar or laser system is kept at a fixed location. (g) (1) Revenues derived from any program utilizing a speed safety system for speed limit enforcement shall first be used to recover program costs. Program costs include, but are not limited to, the installation of speed safety systems, the adjudication of violations, and reporting requirements as specified in this section. (2) The designated jurisdiction shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for traffic-calming measures in order to remain authorized to participate in the pilot program, and shall annually expend not less than the annual average of expenditures for traffic-calming measures during the 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018– 19 fiscal years. For purposes of this subdivision, in calculating average expenditures on traffic-calming measures, restricted funds that may not be available on an ongoing basis, including those from voter-approved bond issuances or tax measures, shall not be included. The designated jurisdiction shall enter into an agreement with the Department of Transportation for the use of any excess revenue for traffic calmingmeasures on the Pacific Coast Highway, in the City of Malibu. Excess revenue shall be used for traffic-calming Bill Text - SB-1297 The City of Malibu’s speed safety system pilot... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id... 6 of 10 4/12/2026, 3:11 PM
City Council 27 – 26 8/4/2026
measures within three years of the end of the fiscal year in which the excess revenue was received. If trafficcalming measures are not planned or constructed after the third year, excess revenue shall revert to the Active Transportation Program established pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2380) of the Streets and Highways Code, to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission pursuant to Section 2381 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(h) A person shall not be assessed a civil penalty if they are subject to criminal penalties for the same act. (i) A speed safety system may only be in operation for five years, or until January 1, 2032, whichever date is sooner.
22437. (a) No later than 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of a notice of violation, the recipient may request an initial review of the notice by the issuing agency. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, electronically, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. If, following the initial review, the issuing agency is satisfied that the violation did not occur, or that extenuating circumstances make cancellation of the notice of violation appropriate in the interest of justice, the issuing agency shall cancel the notice of violation. The issuing agency shall advise the processing agency, if any, of the cancellation. The issuing agency or the processing agency shall mail the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice within 60 days of receipt of the recipient’s request for an initial review, and, if cancellation of the notice does not occur following that review, include a reason for that denial, notification of the ability to request an administrative hearing, and notice of the procedures adopted by the designated jurisdiction for the administrative hearing, including for waiving prepayment of the civil penalty based upon an inability to pay pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b).
(b) (1) If the person contesting the notice of violation is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may, no later than 21 calendar days following the mailing of the results of the issuing agency’s initial review, request an administrative hearing of the violation. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, electronically, or in person.
(2) The person requesting an administrative hearing shall pay the amount of the civil penalty to the processing agency. The issuing agency shall adopt a written procedure to allow a person to request an administrative hearing without payment of the civil penalty upon satisfactory proof of an inability to pay the amount due. (3) The administrative hearing shall be held within 90 calendar days following the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed 21 calendar days.
(c) The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
(1) The person requesting a hearing shall have the choice of a hearing upon written declaration, video conference, or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the issuing agency. (2) If the person requesting a hearing is an unemancipated minor, that person shall be permitted to appear at a hearing or admit responsibility for the automated speed violation without the appointment of a guardian. The processing agency may proceed against the minor in the same manner as against an adult. (3) The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the issuing agency and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of contested automated speed violations. (4) (A) The issuing agency’s governing body or chief executive officer of the designated jurisdiction shall appoint or contract with qualified independent examiners or administrative hearing providers that employ qualified independent examiners to conduct the administrative hearings. Examiners shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity necessary to conduct a fair and impartial review, and shall meet the minimum requirements specified in subparagraph (B). The examiner shall be separate and independent from the notice of violation issuing and processing functions. An examiner’s continued employment, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits shall not, directly or indirectly, be linked to the amount of civil penalties upheld by the examiner or the number or percentage of violations upheld by the examiner. (B) (i) Examiners shall have a minimum of 20 hours of training. The examiner, unless an employee of the designated jurisdiction, is responsible for the costs of the training. The issuing agency may reimburse the examiner for those costs. Training may be provided through any of the following:
(I) An accredited college or university.

Bill Text - SB-1297 The City of Malibu’s speed safety system pilot... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id... 7 of 10 4/12/2026, 3:11 PM
City Council 27 – 27 8/4/2026
(II) A program conducted by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (III) A program conducted by the American Arbitration Association or a similar organization. (IV) Any program approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, including a program developed and provided by, or for, the agency. (ii) Training programs shall include topics relevant to the administrative hearing, including, but not limited to, applicable laws and regulations, enforcement procedures, due process, evaluation of evidence, hearing procedures, and effective oral and written communication. Upon the approval of the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, up to 12 hours of relevant experience may be substituted for up to 12 hours of training. Up to eight hours of the training requirements described in this subparagraph may be credited to an individual, at the discretion of the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, based upon training programs or courses described in this subparagraph that the individual attended within the last five years.
(5) The employee of the designated jurisdiction who issues a notice of violation shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing. To establish a violation, the issuing agency shall not be required to produce any evidence other than, in proper form, the notice of violation or copy thereof, including the photograph of the vehicle’s license plate, and information received from the Department of Motor Vehicles identifying the registered owner of the vehicle. The documentation in proper form shall be prima facie evidence of the violation. If the designated jurisdiction meets its initial burden, the recipient of the notice of violation may present any evidence and argument in defense.
(6) The examiner’s final decision following the administrative hearing may be personally delivered to the person by the examiner or sent by first-class mail within 60 days of the date of the conclusion of the administrative hearing.
(7) Following a determination by the examiner that a person has committed the violation, the examiner may, consistent with the written guidelines established by the issuing agency, allow payment of the civil penalty in installments, or an issuing agency may allow for deferred payment or payments in installments, if the person provides evidence satisfactory to the examiner or the issuing agency, as the case may be, of an inability to pay the civil penalty in full. If authorized by the governing body of the issuing agency, the examiner may permit the performance of community service in lieu of payment of the civil penalty. (8) If a notice of violation is dismissed following an administrative hearing, any civil penalty, if paid, shall be refunded by the issuing agency within 30 days.
22438. (a) Within 30 days after personal delivery or mailing of the final decision described in subdivision (c) of Section 22437, the contestant may seek review by filing an appeal to the superior court, where the case shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the processing agency’s file in the case on appeal shall be lodged by the designated agency at the designated agency’s expense and be received into evidence. A copy of the notice of violation shall be admitted into evidence as prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the notice. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be served in person or by certified first-class mail with return receipt upon the processing agency by the appellant. For purposes of computing the 30-day period, Section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable. A proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case. (b) The fee for filing the notice of appeal shall be as provided in Section 70615 of the Government Code. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the designated jurisdiction shall lodge its administrative record for the case with the court within 15 calendar days. The court shall notify the appellant of the appearance date by mail or personal delivery. The court shall retain the fee under Section 70615 of the Government Code regardless of the outcome of the appeal. If the appellant prevails, this fee and any payment of the civil penalty shall be promptly refunded by the issuing agency in accordance with the judgment of the court. (c) The conduct of the hearing on appeal under this section is a subordinate judicial duty that may be performed by a commissioner or other subordinate judicial officer at the direction of the presiding judge of the court. (d) If a notice of appeal of the examiner’s decision is not filed within the period set forth in subdivision (a), the decision shall be deemed final.
(e) If the civil penalty has not been paid and the final decision is adverse to the appellant, the processing agency may, promptly after the decision becomes final, proceed to collect the civil penalty under Section 22436. 22439. (a) A designated jurisdiction shall offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation Bill Text - SB-1297 The City of Malibu’s speed safety system pilot... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id... 8 of 10 4/12/2026, 3:11 PM
City Council 27 – 28 8/4/2026
recipients, to perform community service in lieu of paying the penalty for a speed system violation. (b) A designated jurisdiction shall offer the ability for indigent speed safety system violation recipients to pay applicable fines and penalties over a period of time under a payment plan with monthly installments of no more than twenty-five dollars ($25) and shall limit the processing fee to participate in a payment plan to five dollars ($5) or less.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a designated jurisdiction shall reduce the applicable fines and penalties by 80 percent for indigent persons, and by 50 percent for individuals up to 250 percent above the federal poverty level.
(d) The person may demonstrate that they are indigent or make up to 250 percent above the poverty level or less by providing either of the following information, as applicable:
(1) Proof of income from a pay stub or another form of proof of earnings, such as a bank statement, that shows that the person meets the income criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 68632 of the Government Code, subject to review and approval by the processing agency or its designee. The processing agency or its designee shall not unreasonably withhold its approval.
(2) Proof of receipt of benefits under the programs described in subdivision (a) of Section 68632 of the Government Code, including, but not limited to, an electronic benefits transfer card or another card, subject to review and approval by the processing agency. The processing agency or its designee shall not unreasonably withhold its approval.
22440. The designated jurisdiction that used a speed safety system shall, on or before March 1 of the fifth year in which the system has been implemented, submit to its governing body and the transportation committees of the Legislature, consistent with Section 9795 of the Government Code, an evaluation of the speed safety system in their respective jurisdictions to determine the system’s impact on street safety and the system’s economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. The report shall be made available on the internet website of the jurisdiction and shall include all of the following information:
(a) Data, at least three months before and at least six months after implementation of each system, on the number and proportion of vehicles speeding from 11 to 15 miles per hour over the legal speed limit, inclusive, from 16 to 25 miles per hour over the legal speed limit, inclusive, 26 miles per hour over the legal speed limit, and for every violator traveling at a speed of 100 miles per hour or greater. Data shall also be collected on the average speed of vehicles and 85th percentile speed of vehicles. To the extent feasible, the data should be collected at the same time of day, day of week, and location. (b) The number of notices of violation issued under the program by month and year, the corridors or locations where violations occurred, and the number of vehicles with two or more violations in a monthly period and a yearly period.
(c) Data, before and after implementation of the system, on the number of traffic collisions that occurred where speed safety systems are used, relative to citywide data, and the transportation mode of the parties involved. The data on traffic collisions shall be categorized by collision type and injury severity, such as property damage only, complaint of pain, other visible injury, or severe or fatal injury. (d) The number of violations paid, the number of delinquent violations, and the number of violations for which an initial review is requested. For the violations in which an initial review was requested, the report shall indicate the number of violations that went to initial review, administrative hearing, and de novo hearing, the number of notices that were dismissed at each level of review, and the number of notices that were not dismissed after each level of review.
(e) The costs associated with implementation and operation of the speed safety system and revenues collected by the jurisdiction.
(f) A racial and economic equity impact analysis, developed in collaboration with local racial justice and economic equity stakeholder groups. The analysis shall include the number of notices of violations issued to indigent individuals, the number of notices of violations issued to individuals of up to 250 percent above the poverty line, and the number of violations issued to each ZIP Code.
22441. This article shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2032, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 3 of this act, which adds Section 22435 to the Vehicle Bill Text - SB-1297 The City of Malibu’s speed safety system pilot... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id... 9 of 10 4/12/2026, 3:11 PM
City Council 27 – 29 8/4/2026
Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:

To protect the privacy interests of persons who are issued notices of violation under a speed safety system pilot program, the Legislature finds and declares that the photographic or administrative records generated by the program shall be confidential, and shall be made available only to alleged violators and to governmental agencies solely for the purpose of enforcing these violations and assessing the impact of the use of speed safety systems, as required by this act.

SEC. 5. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique need to provide additional traffic safety in the City of Malibu.

Bill Text - SB-1297 The City of Malibu’s speed safety system pilot... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id... 10 of 10 4/12/2026, 3:11 PM
City Council 27 – 30 8/4/2026
Resolution No. 2026-XXX

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA ANA REQUESTING THAT THE CALIFORNIA
STATE LEGISLATURE AMEND ASSEMBLY BILL 645
(FRIEDMAN) TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY OF SANTA ANA

TO ESTABLISH A SPEED SAFETY SYSTEM PILOT

PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana is the second most densely populated city in Orange County, serves as the County Seat, and contains some of the county’s highest concentrations of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, school-aged children, and seniors; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana is centrally located in the heart of Orange County and is bounded by Interstate-5 to the north, Interstate-405 to the south and State Route-55 to the east and has over 100 miles of roadway including 15 major arterials that move over 500,000 vehicles per day; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana is identified by the Federal Highway Administration and the Southern California Association of Governments as a safety priority area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is committed to eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries through implementation of the City's Vision Zero Action Plan, adopted in 2024, and related transportation safety initiatives; and WHEREAS, excessive vehicle speed is a leading contributing factor in fatal and serious injury traffic collisions and significantly increases both the likelihood and severity of crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists; and WHEREAS, the California Legislature recognized these safety concerns through the enactment of Assembly Bill 645 (Friedman, Chapter 808, Statutes of 2023), establishing California's first Speed Safety System Pilot Program to evaluate automated speed enforcement as an evidence-based strategy for reducing excessive speeding and preventing fatal and severe injury crashes; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 645 authorizes only the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish Speed Safety System Pilot Programs through January 1, 2032; and WHEREAS, in 2024, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1297 (Allen), expanding the pilot program to authorize the City of Malibu to establish and operate a Speed Safety System Pilot Program after determining that Malibu faced unique roadway safety challenges warranting participation; and
City Council 27 – 31 8/4/2026
Resolution No. 2026-XXX

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1297 established an important legislative precedent demonstrating that additional California cities may be added to the pilot program when justified by documented transportation safety needs; and WHEREAS, through Senate Bill 1297, the Legislature demonstrated its willingness to expand the Speed Safety System Pilot Program to additional jurisdictions when local transportation safety conditions justify participation, thereby establishing a clear legislative precedent for future expansion; and
WHEREAS, other California jurisdictions, including the City of Berkeley, have formally requested legislative expansion of Assembly Bill 645 to include additional cities with demonstrated roadway safety needs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana experienced 3,487 total collisions in 2025, including 1,943 total injured and 26 fatalities with unsafe speed the main factor in many of the collisions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana has one of the highest concentrations of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and other vulnerable roadway users in Orange County and continues to experience disproportionately high numbers of pedestrian and bicycle injury collisions among California's largest cities; and WHEREAS, a substantial portion of Santa Ana residents rely on walking, bicycling, and public transportation for daily travel, and improving roadway safety for these vulnerable users advances transportation equity and protects historically underserved communities where more than 50 percent do not have access to a private vehicle; and WHEREAS, Santa Ana consistently ranks near the top among comparably sized California cities in pedestrian and bicyclist injury collisions, according to the California Office of Traffic Safety, demonstrating a continuing need for additional transportation safety tools; and
WHEREAS, the City has experienced multiple recent fatal excessive speedrelated collisions, including a crash on Segerstrom Avenue in April 2025 that claimed the lives of five young adults, followed by another fatal reckless speed-related collision along the same corridor only months later, further demonstrating the ongoing public safety risks associated with excessive speeding; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted and continues to implement numerous transportation safety initiatives including the Vision Zero Action Plan, General Plan Mobility Element, Active Transportation Plan, Safe Routes to School Program, Complete Streets policies, neighborhood traffic calming improvements, enhanced pedestrian crossings, bicycle infrastructure improvements, and the First Street Multimodal Boulevard Study; however, excessive speeding continues to contribute to preventable fatalities and serious injuries; and
City Council 27 – 32 8/4/2026
Resolution No. 2026-XXX

WHEREAS, Automated Speed Safety Systems are intended to complement, not replace infrastructure enhancement, education, and traditional traffic enforcement by providing consistent, objective, and continuous speed enforcement at locations with documented speeding and crash histories; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 645 includes significant privacy and civil liberties protections, including restrictions limiting image capture to rear license plates, prohibitions on facial recognition technology, strict data retention requirements, confidentiality protections, independent auditing, public reporting, and limitations on the use and sharing of collected information; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 645 also requires participating jurisdictions to adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy, prepare a Speed Safety System Impact Report, conduct public outreach, establish equity and privacy safeguards, provide reduced penalties and diversion opportunities for qualifying low-income individuals, and evaluate program effectiveness through ongoing reporting; and
WHEREAS, early results from California's operational Speed Safety System Pilot Programs have demonstrated substantial reductions in excessive speeding, indicating that automated speed enforcement can be an effective component of a comprehensive roadway safety strategy; and
WHEREAS, participating jurisdictions including Long Beach, Glendale, Oakland, San Francisco, and Malibu have established administrative, operational, and policy frameworks demonstrating that Speed Safety Systems can be implemented responsibly while protecting privacy and due process; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana believes that participation in the Speed Safety System Pilot Program would provide an additional evidence-based tool to reduce excessive speeding, prevent fatalities and serious injuries, and further the City's Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic deaths; and
WHEREAS, inclusion of Santa Ana would provide valuable implementation data from one of California's most densely populated urban environments and further the State's ongoing evaluation of automated speed enforcement technologies.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana, that:

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 City Council respectfully requests that the California State Legislature amend Assembly Bill 645 (Friedman) to authorize the City of Santa Ana to establish and operate a Speed Safety System Pilot Program consistent with the requirements applicable to other participating jurisdictions.

City Council 27 – 33 8/4/2026
Resolution No. 2026-XXX

Section 3. The City Council finds that Santa Ana possesses demonstrated transportation safety needs comparable to or greater than several jurisdictions currently participating in the pilot program and therefore merits legislative inclusion.

Section 4. The City Council further finds that participation in the pilot program would advance the City's Vision Zero Action Plan by providing an additional transportation safety tool to reduce excessive speeding, prevent fatal and severe injury collisions, improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and enhance overall roadway safety.

Section 5. The City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit certified copies of this Resolution to Governor Gavin Newsom, Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, Senator Tom Umberg, Senator Ben Allen, Assemblymember Laura Friedman, the League of California Cities, and any other appropriate state legislative representatives and agencies.

ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________, 2026.
________________________________
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:

Kyle Nellesen
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers _
City Council 27 – 34 8/4/2026
Resolution No. 2026-XXX

CERTIFICATION 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 _______________.

Date: ______________________ ________________________________ City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
City Council 27 – 35 8/4/2026
City Manager’s Office
www.santa-ana.gov/cm
Item # 28
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
August 4, 2026
TOPIC: Resolution Supporting State Legislation to Improve Utility Affordability

AGENDA TITLE
Resolution Supporting State Legislation to Improve Utility Affordability, Strengthen Ratepayer Protections, and Increase Accountability of Investor-Owned Utilities

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a Resolution Supporting State Legislation to Improve Utility Affordability, Strengthen Ratepayer Protections, and Increase Accountability of Investor-Owned Utilities During the 2025–2026 California Legislative Session.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING STATE LEGISLATION TO

IMPROVE UTILITY AFFORDABILITY, STRENGTHEN RATEPAYER PROTECTIONS,

AND INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY OF INVESTOR-OWNED UTILITIES DURING THE 2025-2026 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE SESSION
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No

DISCUSSION
Southern California Edison (SCE) is the primary electric utility provider serving the City of Santa Ana. Over the past decade, electricity rates have increased significantly, placing additional financial burdens on residents, businesses, nonprofit organizations, schools, and public agencies. These increases have disproportionately affected working families and lower-income households, many of whom continue to experience rising housing, transportation, food, and healthcare costs.

The California Public Utilities Commission continues to consider applications affecting utility rates, while the California Legislature is evaluating several measures intended to improve affordability, increase transparency in utility rate-setting, strengthen oversight of investor-owned utilities, encourage prudent infrastructure investment, and modernize California's electric grid. Collectively, these measures seek to better protect residential and small business ratepayers while maintaining a safe and reliable electric system.

City Council 28 – 1 8/4/2026
Resolution Supporting State Legislation to Improve Utility Affordability August 4, 2026

The proposed resolution establishes the City's formal legislative position in support of the following ten bills currently pending during the 2025–2026 California Legislative Session:
• Assembly Bill 1761 (Rogers)
• Assembly Bill 2463 (Petrie-Norris)
• Assembly Bill 2493 (Petrie-Norris)
• Assembly Bill 2516 (Petrie-Norris)
• Senate Bill 868 (Wiener)
• Senate Bill 886 (Padilla and McNerney)
• Senate Bill 905 (Becker)
• Senate Bill 943 (Becker)
• Senate Bill 1098 (Pérez)
• Senate Bill 1138 (Padilla)
• Senate Bill 1359 (Stern)
Legislative Review
The initial Councilmember Requested Item presented to the City Council on July 7, 2026 included 13 proposed bills for consideration. The City Council agreed to add support for AB 2493 and indicated there may be a conflict with supporting SB 1359 based on a previous letter of opposition from the City regarding South Coast AQMD Proposed Amended Rules 1111 and 1121.

The City’s position is consistent with its previous position opposing policies that impose disproportionate financial burdens on residents and businesses. The City's support should not be construed as reversing its concerns regarding affordability, local government engagement, or appliance replacement mandates as expressed in its June 2025 letter opposing South Coast AQMD Proposed Amended Rules 1111 and 1121.

Staff consulted with Townsend Public Affairs to determine the status of each bill as the California Legislative Session nears its end for 2026. Following a review of the current legislative status of each measure, three bills, Assembly Bill 1677 (Boerner and Harabedian), Assembly Bill 1774 (Boerner and Harabedian), and Assembly Bill 2338 (Ransom), were omitted from the proposed resolution because they were held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee's suspense file and did not advance. As a result, those measures are no longer active for consideration during the current legislative session.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

City Council 28 – 2 8/4/2026
Resolution Supporting State Legislation to Improve Utility Affordability August 4, 2026

EXHIBIT(S)

1. Resolution Supporting State Legislation Regarding Utility Affordability Submitted By: Sylvia Vazquez, Deputy City Manager
Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
City Council 28 – 3 8/4/2026
Resolution 2026-XXX

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING STATE

LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE UTILITY AFFORDABILITY,

STRENGTHEN RATEPAYER PROTECTIONS, AND

INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY OF INVESTOR-OWNED
UTILITIES DURING THE 2025–2026 CALIFORNIA

LEGISLATIVE SESSION
WHEREAS, Southern California Edison ("SCE") is the primary electric utility serving the City of Santa Ana and provides electric service to hundreds of thousands of residents and businesses throughout the community; and
WHEREAS, over the past decade, electric utility rates charged by Southern California Edison have increased substantially, placing an increasing financial burden on Santa Ana residents, businesses, nonprofit organizations, schools, and public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that Santa Ana is a predominantly working-class community with many households already facing rising housing, food, transportation, and healthcare costs, making utility affordability an issue of significant public concern; and
WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") continues to consider numerous applications that may further increase electric utility rates for Southern California Edison customers, while many households remain behind on utility payments and rely upon rate assistance programs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that affordable, reliable, safe, and transparent utility service is essential to protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Santa Ana; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature is currently considering legislation intended to improve utility affordability, strengthen oversight of investor-owned utilities, increase transparency in utility rate-setting, encourage prudent infrastructure investment, modernize California's electric grid, and provide greater protection for residential and small business ratepayers; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that these legislative reforms would promote greater accountability of investor-owned utilities while helping ensure that future utility investments are reasonable, transparent, and in the public interest.

City Council 28 – 4 8/4/2026
Resolution 2026-XXX

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 expresses its support for the following bills:
• AB 1761 (Rogers)
• AB 2463 (Petrie-Norris)
• AB 2493 (Petrie-Norris)
• AB 2516 (Petrie-Norris)
• SB 868 (Wiener)
• SB 886 (Padilla and McNerney)
• SB 905 (Becker)
• SB 943 (Becker)
• SB 1098 (Pérez)
• SB 1138 (Padilla)
• SB 1359 (Stern)
All Referenced bills are currently pending before the California Legislature during the 2025–2026 Regular Session. The City Council finds that these measures collectively advance the goals of improving utility affordability, increasing transparency in utility ratesetting, strengthening oversight and accountability of investor-owned utilities, promoting prudent infrastructure investment, modernizing California's electric grid, and protecting residential and small business ratepayers from unnecessary utility costs.

Section 2. The City supports SB 1359 (Stern) because it promotes fiscal accountability and protects ratepayers from unnecessary utility costs. This position is consistent with the City's previous position opposing policies that impose disproportionate financial burdens on residents and businesses. The City's support should not be construed as reversing its concerns regarding affordability, local government engagement, or appliance replacement mandates as expressed in its June 2025 letter opposing South Coast AQMD Proposed Amended Rules 1111 and 1121.

Section 3. The City Council urges the Governor of California, the California State Legislature, and the California Public Utilities Commission to continue pursuing policies and regulatory reforms that protect residential and small business ratepayers from unreasonable utility costs, improve transparency and accountability in utility ratesetting, ensure prudent investment of ratepayer funds, encourage affordable and reliable electric service, and promote the long-term modernization, safety, and reliability of California's electric system.

Section 4. 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.

City Council 28 – 5 8/4/2026
Resolution 2026-XXX

ADOPTED this ____ day of August, 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 that the attached Resolution No. 2026-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on August____, 2026.

Date: _____________________
Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk, Elections Official
City of Santa Ana
City Council 28 – 6 8/4/2026
Community Development Agency
www.santa-ana.gov/cd
Item # 29
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
August 4, 2026
TOPIC: Regional Coordination Project (RCP) Program Year 2026-27 Grant Award for CareerRx OC Healthcare Initiative

AGENDA TITLE
Resolution and Appropriation Adjustment to Accept the State Regional Coordination Grant Award Agreement AA611027 (Non-General Fund)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Adopt a resolution to accept the State of California Regional Coordination Project grant award, and authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the State of California – Employment Development Department, WIOA and approve Appropriation Adjustment for $1,000,000 for the CareerRx OC healthcare initiative.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING THE ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT

FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT TO STRENGTHEN COLLABORATION BETWEEN LOCAL

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARDS AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES,

AND SUPPORT TO LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES IN SANTA ANA

2. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to conduct all negotiations, sign, and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project scope, including but not limited to agreements with subrecipients, consultants, and contractors.

3. Approve an appropriation adjustment to recognize $1,000,000 in funds from Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act-Federal Grant-Indirect account (no. 12318002-52001) and appropriating the same amount to expenditure account (no. 12318729-various). (Requires five affirmative votes) GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No
City Council 29 – 1 8/4/2026
Adopt a Resolution to accept the CareerRX OC Initiative Award August 4, 2026

DISCUSSION
The State of California Employment Development Department has selected the City to receive a competitive Regional Coordination Project Grant in the amount of $1,000,000 to support CareerRx OC healthcare initiative.

This Regional Coordination Project intends to advance workforce innovation through collaboration with adult education providers and community colleges, grounded in regional approaches and sector strategies. The grant will directly address regional healthcare labor shortgages including more than 2,500 Medical Assistant openings and 900 Licensed Vocational Nurses while simultaneously helping residents overcome barriers such as tuition assistance, transportation, and lack of career pathway awareness. The grant period is anticipated to span 24 months focused on expanding career pathway opportunities in allied healthcare occupations, particularly Medical Assistant training and advancement pathways into Licensed Vocational Nurse careers.

The City will serve as the lead agency and fiscal agent for the regional partnership. The project brings together workforce, education, and healthcare sector partners to address documented healthcare workforce shortages across Orange County while increasing access to training and employment opportunities for low-income and underserved residents.

The following are the key project subrecipients and partner organizations, with the planned funding allocations:
• Orange County Workforce Development Board - approximately $349,000 • Anaheim Workforce Development Board - approximately $165,000 • Huntington Beach Adult School - approximately $50,000 • North Orange Continuing Education - approximately $25,000 • Labor Market Information - $21,000
• Hospital Association of Southern California - $15,000 Santa Ana College also plays a critical role in the CareerRx OC initiative as the region's primary postsecondary education partner. While the Regional Coordination Project requires collaboration with adult education providers for entry-level workforce training, Santa Ana College serves as the advanced education and career pathway partner for participants seeking to continue beyond Medical Assistant training into higher-skilled healthcare occupations, including the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) program and other allied health careers. Participants completing the initial training will be encouraged to transition into Santa Ana College's healthcare programs, with eligible individuals receiving Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) tuition assistance and supportive services. This partnership creates a seamless career pathway that allows residents to earn industry-recognized credentials, advance their education locally, and obtain higher-wage employment while helping meet Orange County's long-term healthcare workforce needs.

City Council 29 – 2 8/4/2026
Adopt a Resolution to accept the CareerRX OC Initiative Award August 4, 2026

As fiscal agent and lead entity, the City is anticipated to retain approximately $375,000 of the total award to support regional coordination, direct program operations, participant supportive services, employer engagement, administration, and project oversight.

The project is designed to serve participants through cohort-based healthcare training, work-based learning, supportive services, externships, and direct connections to healthcare employers. The partnership will also support regional workforce system coordination and long-term healthcare sector pathway development.

This award represents a significant regional investment in workforce development and reinforces the City’s leadership role in convening regional partnerships that address both employer workforce needs and economic mobility for residents.

Adoption of the Resolution (Exhibit 1) will allow the City to accept the grant funds from the State of California and authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to conduct all negotiations, sign and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, and payment requests which may be necessary for the completion of the Project scope(s), including but not limited to agreements with contractors, consultants, and vendors detailed in the Grant Agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the appropriation adjustment will recognize $1,000,000 in funds from the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act-Federal Grant-Indirect account (no. 12318002-52001) and appropriate the same amount to expenditure account (no. 12318729-various). Grant includes 10% Administrative Costs, remaining to Staffing, Overhead, and Contractual Expenses.

Funds will be assigned, budgeted, and available for expenditure in FY 2026-27. Any remaining balances not expended at the end of the fiscal year will be presented to City Council for approval of carryovers to FY 2027-28.

Fiscal Year Accounting
Unit-Account Fund Description
Accounting Unit,
Account
Description
Amount
FY 2026-27 12318729-
various
Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act
(WIOA)
WIOA, Various $375,000
FY 2026-27 12318729-
69135
Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act
(WIOA)
WIOA, Payment to
Subagent $625,000
Total $1,000,000
City Council 29 – 3 8/4/2026
Adopt a Resolution to accept the CareerRX OC Initiative Award August 4, 2026

EXHIBIT(S)

1. Resolution
Submitted By: Michael L. Garcia, Executive Director, Community Development Agency Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
City Council 29 – 4 8/4/2026
Resolution No. 2026-XXX

Resolution No: 2026-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA ANA APPROVING THE ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT

FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO

STRENGTHEN COLLABORATION BETWEEN LOCAL

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARDS AND
COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND SUPPORT TO LOWINCOME COMMUNITIES IN SANTA ANA WHEREAS, the City submitted a proposal to The State of California Employment Development Department (“Grantor”) in support of the Regional Coordination Project Initiative. The proposal, representing ongoing initiatives at the WORK Center, aims to develop a regional workforce coordination bringing together local workforce development boards, adult education providers, community college and healthcare employers into a single employer-driven healthcare career pathway. The collaboration seeks to create a unified regional response to healthcare workforce shortages across the City of Santa Ana and the Orange County region (“Project”).

WHEREAS, in June 2026, Grantor announced its intent to award the City $1,000,000 to support the Workforce Development Board’s (“WDB”) efforts to enhance coordination of workforce services and resources between key agencies within the City’s local workforce ecosystem (“Grant”). This funding will enable the City’s WDB and its collaborating partners to serve participants through cohort-based healthcare training, work-based learning, externships and direct connections to healthcare employers.

WHEREAS, the City will enter into a WIOA Subgrant Agreement with the Grantor (“Exhibit A”) to accept the Grant funds and to implement the goals and objectives detailed in the Project, which was submitted to and accepted by the Grantor, Grant Number AA611027 (“Grant Agreement”).

NOW, THEREFORE, 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:

A. Approves the acceptance of grant funds of up to a maximum amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for the Grant Project; and B. Certifies that the City has or will have available, prior to commencement of Project work utilizing specified Grant funds, sufficient funds, including those provided by this Grant, to complete the Project; and
C. Certifies that the City has or will provide sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project through the Grant funds; and
EXHIBIT 1
City Council 29 – 5 8/4/2026
Resolution No. 2026-XXX

D. Certifies that the City has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the provisions contained in the Grant Agreement for Grant No. AA611027 (“Grant Agreement”) attached as Exhibit A; and
E. Delegates the authority to the City Manager, or designee, to conduct all negotiations, sign and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements (including but not limited to the Grant Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A); amendments and payment requests which may be necessary for the completion of the Project scope(s), including but not limited to agreements with contractors, consultants and vendors detailed in the Grant Agreement; and
F. Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines.

Section 2. 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 ______________, 20_______.
________________________________
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:

Andrea N. Garcia
Sr. Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers _
EXHIBIT 1
City Council 29 – 6 8/4/2026
Resolution No. 2026-XXX

CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer 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 August ___, 2026.

Date: _________________ _____________________
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
EXHIBIT 1
City Council 29 – 7 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 8 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 9 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 10 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 11 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 12 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 13 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 14 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 15 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 16 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 17 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 18 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 19 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 20 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 21 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 22 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 23 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 24 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 25 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 26 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 27 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 28 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 29 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 30 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 31 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 32 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 33 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 34 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 35 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 36 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 37 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 38 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 39 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 40 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 41 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 42 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 43 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 44 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 45 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 46 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 47 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 48 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 49 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 50 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 51 8/4/2026
City Council 29 – 52 8/4/2026
Planning and Building Agency
www.santa-ana.gov/pb
Item # 30
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
August 4, 2026
TOPIC: Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 – Watermarke Sandpointe Mixed-Use Development (200 East Sandpointe Avenue)

AGENDA TITLE
Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 – Watermarke Sandpointe Mixed-Use Development (200 East Sandpointe Ave.) (Continued from City Council Meeting of July 7, 2026; Item No. 18)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Adopt a resolution approving Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03; and RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT NO. 2026-03 FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITH 400 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, INCLUDING 20 UNITS PROPOSED AS AFFORDABLE TO EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND 13,887 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 200 EAST SANDPOINTE AVENUE (APNS: 411-111-07, 411-111-09, 411-111-10, AND 411-111-11)

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Density Bonus Agreement with CM Sandpointe, LLC, GH Sandpointe LLC, VMT Sandpointe LLC, and QC Sandpointe LLC, with a 55-year covenant term, for a rental residential development consisting of a 400 unit multi-family residential development, including 20 affordable units (5% of the total units) proposed as affordable to extremely low-income households, at the property located at 200 East Sandpointe Avenue (Agreement No. A-2026-XXX); and

3. Determine that, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the recommended action is exempt from further review under Sections 15183 and 15162.

GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: Yes
City Council 30 – 1 8/4/2026
Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 – Watermarke Sandpointe (200 East Sandpointe Avenue)
August 4, 2026

DISCUSSION
Executive Summary
CM Sandpointe, LLC, GH Sandpointe LLC, JMT Sandpointe LLC, and QC Sandpointe LLC ( “Owner”), represented by Jonny Schneider (“Applicant”) and Pamela Sapetto and Andrea Maloney of Sapetto Real Estate Solutions (application-listed contact persons), request approval of Density Bonus Agreement (DBA) No. 2026-03 to allow the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 400 rental units, including 20 affordable units (5% of the total units) reserved for extremely low-income households, and 13,887 square feet of ground-floor commercial at the property located at 200 East Sandpointe Avenue (“Project”). As proposed, the Project does not request a numerical density bonus nor does it seek to utilize any concessions or waivers to deviate from development standards pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918 and Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Sections 41-1600 through 41-1607.

Staff recommends approval of the request, as the Project is consistent with the General Plan, will add 400 units to the City’s housing stock, satisfies inclusionary housing requirements through on-site affordable units, reinvests in an underutilized site, and would not result in adverse environmental or public health impacts.

Planning Commission Action
On May 11, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Project and voted 6:0:1, with Commissioner Oliva absent, to approve Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) No. 2025-16 for proposed multifamily development and commercial uses, based on the required findings. Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 was not considered by the Planning Commission, as no concessions or waivers were requested requiring documentation in a DBA pursuant to SAMC Section 41-1607. In accordance with SAMC Section 41-1602(d), approval of the DBA is under the jurisdiction of the City Council.

City Council Action
On July 7, 2026, the proposed Density Bonus Agreement was scheduled on the City Council consent calendar. At the meeting, the Council continued the item to August 4, 2026, to allow additional time for councilmembers to meet with staff and obtain further information about the project.

Table 1: Project and Location Information
Item Information
Project Address and
Council Ward 200 East Sandpointe Avenue – Ward 4
Nearest Intersection Main Street and Sandpointe Avenue
General Plan Designation District Center – Medium Low (DC-1.5) Zoning Designation Hutton Centre Mixed Use Specific Development District – Specific Development No. 76 (SD-76), Zone 1
City Council 30 – 2 8/4/2026
Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 – Watermarke Sandpointe (200 East Sandpointe Avenue)
August 4, 2026

Item Information
Surrounding Land Uses North Multifamily Residential, Office, Restaurant East Hotel and Surface Parking
South Manufacturing, Wholesale, Warehouse, Office, Parking Garage West Single-Family Residential across Main Street
Property Size 5.37 acres (233,831 square feet)
Existing Site Development 158,178 sq. ft. (gross floor area) eight-story office building and surface parking Use Permissions Multi-Family Residential, Live-Work, Retail and Service (permitted under SD76, Zone 2, as part of SB 330 request) Zoning Code Sections
Affected Uses SD-76, Section 7, #5; SAMC Section 41-593 and 41-638(a)(1); Article XVI.I (Density Bonus) Project Description
The Applicant proposes a two-phase multi-family mixed-use development incorporating rental apartments and ground-floor commercial units. Upon completion of both phases, the Project will include a total of 400 residential units and approximately 13,887 square feet of commercial space. Phase 1, located on the western portion of the site, includes redevelopment of the existing surface parking area with 224 apartment units, 5,818 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, and a structured parking facility, while retaining the existing eight-story office building. Phase 2, located on the eastern portion of the site, includes demolition of the existing office building and construction of 176 apartment units and approximately 8,069 square feet of commercial space.

The Project’s residential component consists of a mix of studio, one-, and two-bedroom units ranging in size from approximately 576 square feet to 1,115 square feet offered in seven different floor plan layouts. Some residential units will feature private balconies or patios to enhance building articulation and provide additional outdoor living space for residents. The proposed residential density is 74.5 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), which is below the permitted maximum density of 90 du/acre.

The Project features a contemporary architectural style consistent with multi-family and mixed-use developments currently under construction throughout Santa Ana and the surrounding region. Building massing is articulated through varied wall planes, material transitions, and six plaster color tones. Exterior materials include metal trim, railings, and awnings, horizontal wood-like cement panels, metal panels, vertical cement board siding, and glass railings. Ground-floor commercial frontages incorporate curtain wall glazing, muted black-and-white brick veneer, and taller ceiling heights for greater transparency into the spaces. A mural wall is proposed to wrap the corner of the commercial area near Main Street by the western courtyard.

The Project provides approximately 85,960 square feet of common open space, representing 37% of the site area. Open space amenities include landscaped courtyards and private balconies and patios for select residential units. Although not all units include private balconies, every resident gains access to generous common open space City Council 30 – 3 8/4/2026
Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 – Watermarke Sandpointe (200 East Sandpointe Avenue)
August 4, 2026

distributed site-wide, offering seating, landscaping, and massing breaks, with select areas designed for public accessibility. The highly amenitized resident-only space on Level 7 of the parking structure provides substantial recreational and social opportunities that fully compensate for any lack of private outdoor areas on select units. This space is designed for social and recreational use and features a 1,873-square-foot clubroom and a 2,476- square-foot fitness space with showers and restrooms, fitness, and yoga facilities. The rooftop amenity deck also includes an outdoor swimming pool and spa, cabanas, outdoor dining areas with barbeques, dining tables, trellised shade structures, lounge seating, lounge chairs, daybeds, and a fitness lawn. Lighting at the amenity deck will be conditioned to be equipped with dimmers and light shields, and fixtures shall be directed downward and away from adjacent properties to minimize spillover and glare.

At the ground level, publicly accessible open space along Sandpointe Avenue will feature retail plazas with decorative accent paving, pedestrian lighting, and a variety of seating options. The resident-only east courtyard will provide additional recreational opportunities, including outdoor dining areas with barbeques, a game garden, a movie screen, a bocce ball court, and a shaded olive grove. Additional ground-level resident amenities will include a 735-square-foot business lounge, dedicated dog park and dog spa, with lighting integrated throughout the resident courtyards, public plazas, and common open space areas.

Density Bonus
Under California Density Bonus law, developers proposing five or more residential units are allowed to seek increases in base density for providing on-site housing units in exchange for providing affordable units on site. To help make constructing on-site affordable units feasible, the law allows developers to seek up to five incentives/concessions and an unlimited number of waivers. The incentives/concessions are generally reductions in site development standards or modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements, and waivers are essentially variances from development standards (a site or construction condition).

The first version of the Density Bonus Law was adopted in 1979 and has since been amended at various times. Recent revisions allow affordable housing developers to request incentives/concessions and/or waivers or reductions for affordable or mixedincome developments, even if they do not require a numerical density bonus. Moreover, in early 2017, the law was amended to restrict the ability of local jurisdictions to require studies to “justify” the density bonus and requested incentives/waivers and places the onus on local jurisdictions to prove that the incentives/concessions or waivers are not financially warranted.

For this Project, the developer is not requesting a State density bonus for additional units, incentive/concessions, or waivers as part of the Project. Due to the Project’s five-percent City Council 30 – 4 8/4/2026
Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 – Watermarke Sandpointe (200 East Sandpointe Avenue)
August 4, 2026

(5%) affordability rate, the developer can seek one density bonus incentive/concession and unlimited waivers, pursuant to Section 65915 et al. of the California Government Code (Density Bonuses and Other Incentives). In addition, California Assembly Bill No. 2345, approved September 28, 2020, revised the State Density Bonus Law originally adopted in 1979 to provide additional benefits for projects that include qualifying affordable housing.

The purpose of the State Density Bonus Law is to encourage the development and availability of affordable housing. Pursuant to California Government Code sections 65915 (d)(1) and 65915 (e)(1), a local jurisdiction is limited in its ability to deny requested incentives, concessions, and waivers. The City has analyzed the Project and has identified several areas of potential impacts; however, the conditions of approval proposed for the Project are intended to address the Project’s potential impacts.

Onsite Parking
Pursuant to standard parking requirements for multi-family residential developments prescribed by Article XV of Chapter 41 of the SAMC, the project would be required to provide a total of 1,187 onsite spaces. The project site is located in SD-76, which provides for a reduced onsite parking requirement to facilitate development of a mixed-use district.

Pursuant to SD-76 requirements, the total onsite parking requirement would be 949 spaces.

The Project proposes to utilize the State’s parking ratios for qualifying affordable housing projects pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(p), which require a maximum of one space per studio and one-bedroom unit and 1.5 spaces per two-bedroom unit. This reduction in standards is permitted by State Density Bonus Law and does not constitute an incentive/concession or waiver.

At full buildout, the Project will provide a total of 718 parking spaces, exceeding the overall requirement of 516 spaces by 202 spaces. The residential component requires 447 parking spaces pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(p), which establishes the applicable parking ratios for qualifying affordable housing developments.

The commercial component requires 69 parking spaces based on a ratio of five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area.

While the Government Code’s adopted parking requirements apply to the project, a full comparative parking code analysis is provided in Table 2 on the following page.

City Council 30 – 5 8/4/2026
Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 – Watermarke Sandpointe (200 East Sandpointe Avenue)
August 4, 2026

City Council 30 – 6 8/4/2026
Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 – Watermarke Sandpointe (200 East Sandpointe Avenue)
August 4, 2026

Table 2: Required Parking Comparison
Standard Parking Ratio Parking Calculation / Spaces Required Residential
Studio 1.0 space 1 x 29 units 29
One-Bedroom 1.0 space 1 x 277 units 277
Two-Bedroom 1.5 spaces 1.5 x 94 units 141
Retail /Service
5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft (13,887 sq. ft. x 5) /1,000 69 Residential 447
Commercial 69
State
Density
Ratios –
Applicable
to Project
TOTAL Required
Total 516
Residential
Unit 2 spaces 2 x 400 800
Guest 10% of required unit spaces 10% x 800 80
Retail / Service
5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. (13,887 sq. ft. x 5) /1,000 69 Residential 880
Commercial 69
SD-76
TOTAL Required
Total 949
Residential
Unit 1.0 space 1 x 400 400
Studio 1.0 space 1 x 29 units 29
One-Bedroom 1.0 space 1 x 277 units 277
Two-Bedroom 2.0 spaces 2 x 94 units 188
Guest 25% of unit + bedrooms spaces 25% x 894 224
Retail /Service
5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft (13,887 sq. ft. x 5) /1,000 69 Residential 1,118
Commercial 69
SAMC Ch.
41, Article
XV – MultiFamily
Parking
TOTAL Required
Total 1,187
The Project is not anticipated to have any parking impacts. However, to proactively address any neighborhood parking impacts that could result from the Project, the conditions of approval require a post-occupancy parking utilization survey and provisions requiring ongoing parking management practices throughout the life of the Project, including and measures such as:
• Requiring onsite parking permits (such as stickers or hang-tags) for any parking in the onsite parking spaces for both residents and guests; • Policies for maximum time vehicles may be parked in the surface parking spaces, including any guest parking;
• Requiring that overflow parking be directed to available spaces at the 6 Hutton Centre Drive (Griffin Towers) and 203 East Sandpointe Avenue garages; • Policies for towing unauthorized vehicles, vehicles parked in unauthorized locations (such as fire lanes), vehicles parking in surface guest parking without a sticker, hangtag, or other identifiers, and vehicles parked longer than any maximum guest parking timeframes allowed; and
City Council 30 – 7 8/4/2026
Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 – Watermarke Sandpointe (200 East Sandpointe Avenue)
August 4, 2026

• Routine garage inspections to ensure garage is available for vehicle parking.

Collectively, these design and operational measures ensure that the Project is compatible with its surroundings and will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of nearby residents or workers.

Affordable Housing Opportunity and Creation Ordinance
The Project meets the affordable housing goal for the rental category of the City’s Affordable Housing Opportunity and Creation Ordinance (AHOCO) by providing 20 onsite units designated for households earning 30% of the AMI (extremely low-income), which is currently set at $50,750 for a four-person, significantly enhancing the opportunity for income eligible Santa Ana households to rent a home in the City at a lower cost. The units will be dispersed throughout the community. These affordable units will consist of one studio, 14 one-bedroom, and five two-bedroom units, ranging from 576 to 1,115 square feet in size and will contain full kitchens, bathrooms, and open/common (living) areas.

The developer’s Inclusionary Housing Plan has been reviewed and approved by the City’s Housing Division.

Table 3: Affordable Unit Breakdown
Unit Type Units
Affordable
Units in
Project Percent of Unit Type
Studio (576 sq. ft.) 1 29 3%
One-Bedroom (710-735 sq. ft.) 14 277 5%
Two-Bedroom (1,067-1,115 sq. ft.) 5 141 4%
Total 20 400
Public Notification and Community Outreach
As the City Council's approval of this agreement does not constitute a public hearing, no public notification or community outreach is required under applicable state law or local ordinances prior to Council action. However, staff notes that project notifications were posted, published, and mailed in accordance with City and State regulations for the required Planning Commission public hearing. In addition, staff contacted the provided contacts for the Sandpointe Neighborhood Association to ensure they were aware of the project and Planning Commission public hearing.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, the Applicant submitted CEQA analysis for a project consisting of 400 dwelling units, 13,887 square feet of commercial space, and eight levels of parking. The City retained Ascent Environmental, Inc. to conduct an independent peer review, which concluded that the analysis and findings are adequate to support the City’s determination. The Project was subsequently revised to remove one dwelling unit, redesignating it as a residential City Council 30 – 8 8/4/2026
Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 – Watermarke Sandpointe (200 East Sandpointe Avenue)
August 4, 2026

amenity/business lounge, remove basement parking, and to provide 5% affordability for extremely low-income households. Because the Project does not increase the project footprint or building envelope and is equal to or less intensive than the project originally analyzed, the environmental analysis remains valid.

The Project qualifies for exemption from further environmental review under Sections 15183 and 15162. Section 15183 applies to projects consistent with the General Plan or zoning where redevelopment impacts have been adequately analyzed for the area, while Section 15162 applies when a previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) adequately analyzed the environmental effects of an activity and no new significant impacts would result from the proposed Project.

The Project is within the scope of the 2022 Santa Ana General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2020029087). CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 prohibits a subsequent or supplemental EIR unless: (1) substantial changes are proposed in the project; (2) substantial changes occur in circumstances under which the project is undertaken; or (3) new information of substantial importance becomes available. The Project is consistent with the land use designation analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No supplemental or subsequent EIR is required because: (1) the amendment will not require major revisions of the EIR; (2) there have been no substantial changes with respect to circumstances under which the General Plan was approved that will require major revisions; and (3) no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified as complete, has become available. The prior EIR adequately describes the environmental setting, impacts, and mitigation measures. Therefore, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. ER-2024-45, will be filed for the Project.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

EXHIBITS

1. Resolution – Density Bonus Agreement

2. Draft Density Bonus Agreement

3. May 11, 2026 – Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits (hyperlink) Submitted By: Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency and Michael L. Garcia, Executive Director of Community Development Agency
Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
City Council 30 – 9 8/4/2026
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA ANA APPROVING DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT
NO. 2026-03 FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITH 400
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, INCLUDING 20 UNITS PROPOSED

AS AFFORDABLE TO EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS, AND 13,887 SQUARE FEET OF

COMMERCIAL SPACE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 200 EAST SANDPOINTE AVENUE (APNS: 411-111-07,
411-111-09, 411-111-10, AND 411-111-11)

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, determines and declares as follows:

A. CM Sandpointe, LLC, GH Sandpointe LLC, JMT Sandpointe LLC and QC Sandpointe LLC ( “Owner”), represented by Jonny Schneider (“Applicant”) and Pamela Sapetto and Andrea Maloney of Sapetto Real Estate Solutions (application-listed contact persons), request approval of Density Bonus Application (DBA) No. 2026-03 to facilitate the construction of a mixed-use development, with 400 apartment units, including 20 affordable units (five percent of the total units) reserved for extremely low-income households, and 13,887 square feet of ground-floor commercial space for the property located at 200 East Sandpointe Avenue (“Project”).

B. California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918 (State Density Bonus Law) and Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Sections 41-1600 through 41-1607 authorize qualifying housing developments that provide affordable housing units to enter into a Density Bonus Agreement to document affordability obligations and related requirements.

C. The Project includes 20 affordable housing units reserved for extremely lowincome households, representing five percent of the total residential units, and is therefore eligible to utilize the provisions of State Density Bonus Law.

D. As proposed, the Project does not request a numerical density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction in development standards pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918 or SAMC Sections 41-1600 through 41-1607.

E. The Project proposes to utilize the parking standards set forth in California Government Code Section 65915(p) for qualifying affordable housing developments. The Project provides 718 parking spaces, which exceeds City Council 30 – 10 8/4/2026
the applicable parking requirement of 516 spaces. Utilization of the parking standards established by State Density Bonus Law does not constitute an incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction in development standards.

F. On May 11, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing and, at that time, considered all testimony, written and oral, and approved, based on findings, Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) No. 2025-16 for the proposed multifamily development and commercial uses. Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 was not considered by the Planning Commission because the Project does not request any incentives, concessions, waivers, or reductions requiring Planning Commission action pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-1607.

G. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-1602(d), approval of Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 is within the purview of the City Council.

H. On August 4, 2026, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a regular meeting and considered approval of Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-

03. I. The City Council hereby approves Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03.

This Agreement allows for the construction of the proposed Project in accordance with the provisions of State Density Bonus Law and SAMC Section 41-1607, as conditioned.

Section 2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, the Project qualifies for exemption from further environmental review under Sections 15183 and 15162. Section 15183 applies to projects consistent with the General Plan or zoning where redevelopment impacts have been adequately analyzed for the area, while Section 15162 applies when a previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) adequately analyzed the environmental effects of an activity and no new significant impacts would result from the proposed Project.

The Project is within the scope of the 2022 Santa Ana General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2020029087). CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 prohibits a subsequent or supplemental EIR unless: (1) substantial changes are proposed in the project; (2) substantial changes occur in circumstances under which the project is undertaken; or (3) new information of substantial importance becomes available. The Project is consistent with the land use designation analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No supplemental or subsequent EIR is required because: (1) the amendment will not require major revisions of the EIR; (2) there have been no substantial changes with respect to circumstances under which the General Plan was approved that will require major revisions; and (3) no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified as complete, has become available. The prior EIR adequately describes the environmental City Council 30 – 11 8/4/2026
setting, impacts, and mitigation measures. Therefore, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. ER-2024-45, will be filed for the Project.

Section 3. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, referendum, and other proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.

Section 4. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, at its regular meeting, hereby approves Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-03 and authorizes the City Manager to execute the Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. This approval is based on the written materials submitted, including: The Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 11, 2026; and the Request for City Council Action dated August 4, 2026, and their respective exhibits.

Section 5. 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 ___________, 2026.
_______________________
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
City Council 30 – 12 8/4/2026
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:________________________
Melissa M. Crosthwaite
Senior Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers _______________________________________ NOES: Councilmembers _______________________________________ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers _______________________________________ NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers _______________________________________ City Council 30 – 13 8/4/2026

CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2026-XX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on________________, 2026.

Date: ________________ ____________________________________ City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
City Council 30 – 14 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 15 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 16 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 17 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 18 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 19 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 20 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 21 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 22 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 23 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 24 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 25 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 26 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 27 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 28 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 29 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 30 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 31 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 32 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 33 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 34 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 35 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 36 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 37 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 38 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 39 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 40 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 41 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 42 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 43 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 44 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 45 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 46 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 47 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 48 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 49 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 50 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 51 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 52 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 53 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 54 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 55 8/4/2026
City Council 30 – 56 8/4/2026
City Clerk’s Office
www.santa-ana.gov/cityclerk
Item # 31
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
August 4, 2026
TOPIC: Metropolitan Water District Board Representative

AGENDA TITLE
City of Santa Ana Metropolitan Water District Board Representative

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Nominate and appoint a representative to the Metropolitan Water District Board to represent the City of Santa Ana.

GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No

DISCUSSION
The City Council represents the City’s interests in regional issues by serving on a number of regional boards/agencies which make public policy decisions, including in the area of water resources through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

The mission of the Metropolitan Water District is to provide its service area with adequate and reliable supplies of high-quality water to meet present and future needs in an environmentally and economically responsible way. The Board of Directors is a 38- member board representing each of the district’s 26 member agencies and is responsible for establishing and administering policies and upholding the articles in the MWD Act.

On December 17, 2024, the City Council appointed Councilmember Thai Viet Phan to serve as the City’s representative on the Metropolitan Water District Board.

Councilmember Phan resigned from this position on July 21, 2026.

The City has complied with FPPC Regulation 18702.5, which requires posting those certain paid positions in which members have self-appointment authority. As such, the City Council may vote on this appointment.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.

City Council 31 – 1 8/4/2026
Metropolitan Water District Board Representative
August 4, 2026

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

EXHIBIT(S)

1. List of Current Regional Board Appointments

2. Metropolitan Water District Description

3. Councilmember Phan Resignation Letter
Submitted By: Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk
Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
City Council 31 – 2 8/4/2026
Updated: 7/22/2026

CITY OF SANTA ANA
2025-26 REGIONAL BOARD AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS

BOARD CURRENT

MEMBER POSITION MEETINGS COMPENSATION / REMUNERATION
TERM

EXPIRES
Metropolitan Water District
Board (MWD)* Vacant (was
Thai Viet Phan)
Rep.

Board Meetings 2nd Tues. of
month, 12:00pm; Committee
Meetings 2nd Mon. & 2nd/4th
Tues. at 700 N. Alameda St.,
Los Angeles
Mileage
reimbursement from
MWD
Newport Bay Watershed
Executive Committee
Rudy Rosas,
Acting
Executive
Director of
Public Works
Rep.

Biannually (March &
September), 3rd Wed., 1:30-
3:00pm at Irvine Ranch Water
District, 15600 Sand Canyon
Ave., Irvine
None
Orange County Fire
Authority (OFCA) * Phil Bacerra Rep.

Every Month, 4th Thurs.,
6:30pm, 1 Fire Authority Rd.,
Irvine
$100 per meeting;
max $300
Requires
Resolution
Orange County Housing
Finance Trust Jessie Lopez Rep.

Every two months, 3rd Wed.,
10am, 400 W. Civic Center
Dr., Santa Ana
None
OC Sanitation District * Johnathan Ryan
Hernandez Rep.

Every Month, 4th Wed. at 6pm,
18480 Bandilier Circle,
Fountain Valley
$330.75 per meeting;
Max 6
meetings/month; Plus
mileage
OC Sanitation District * Jessie Lopez Alt.

Every Month, 4th Wed. at 6pm,
18480 Bandilier Circle,
Fountain Valley
$330.75 per meeting;
Max 6
meetings/month; Plus
mileage
OC Vector Control District Benjamin
Vazquez Rep.

Every Month, 3rd Thurs., 3pm,
13001 Garden Grove Blvd.,
Garden Grove
$100/Mtg. 1/1/2028
Orange County Water
District*
Valerie
Amezcua Rep.
1st & 3rd Wed., 5:30pm, 18700
Ward St., Fountain Valley;
Committees at various times /
dates
$330.75 per meeting;
max 10
meetings/month
Southern California
Association of Governments
(SCAG) *
Valerie
Amezcua Rep.

Meets 1st Thurs. of each
month, 12:15 – 2:00pm, 900
Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700, Los
Angeles
$150 per meeting;
Max 6
meetings/month; Plus
mileage
District 16
Orange County Council of
Governments Board of
Directors (OCCOG) *
Valerie
Amezcua Rep.

Every Month, 4th Thurs.,
10:30am – 12:30pm, 125
Pacifica, Irvine
$100/meeting
Orange County Council of
Governments Board of
Directors (OCCOG) *
Jessie Lopez Alt.

Every Month, 4th Thurs.,
10:30am – 12:30pm, 125
Pacifica, Irvine
$100/meeting
Santa Ana River Flood
Protection Agency
(SARFPA)
Benjamin
Vazquez Rep.

Meets odd months, 4th Thurs.,
4:00pm, 18700 Ward St.,
Fountain Valley
None
Santa Ana River Flood
Protection Agency
(SARFPA)
Cesar Barrera,
Deputy Public
Works Director Alt.

Meets odd months, 4th Thurs.,
4:00pm, 18700 Ward St.,
Fountain Valley
None
Transportation Corridor
Agencies (TCA) *
David Penaloza Rep. Every Month, 2nd Thurs.,
9:30am, 125 Pacifica, Irvine
$120 per meeting;
Plus Mileage
Transportation Corridor
Agencies (TCA) *
Valerie
Amezcua Alt. Every Month, 2nd Thurs.,
9:30am, 125 Pacifica, Irvine
$120 per meeting;
Plus Mileage
*Required to file a FPPC Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) City Council 31 – 3 8/4/2026

REGIONAL BOARD/AGENCY DESCRIPTION

REV. 7/22/2026

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (MWD) The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is a state-established cooperative and regional wholesaler that delivers water to 26 member public agencies – 14 cities, 11 municipal water districts, one county water authority – which in turn provides water to more than 19 million people in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties. The district imports water from the Colorado River and Northern California to supplement local supplies and helps its members develop increased water conservation, recycling, storage, and other resource-management programs.

Membership: Open; not required to be a sitting Councilmember or resident Compensation: Reimbursement for mileage, conference registration, lodging Term Limits: None
Meeting Location: MWD Headquarters Building, 700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles Meeting Date/Time: Monthly, 2nd Tuesday of each month at 12:00 P.M., Committee meetings on 2nd Monday and 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month Alternate: None
City Council 31 – 4 8/4/2026

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 July 21, 2026
Chair Adan Ortega & Board of Directors
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
P.O. Box 54153
Los Angeles, CA 90054-0153
RE: Letter of Resignation
Dear Chair Ortega & the Board Members of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California:

I am writing to formally submit my resignation from the Board of Directors for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), effective July 21, 2026.

It has been an honor to serve on the Board of Directors and to contribute to the organization’s mission over the past five years. I have greatly appreciated the opportunity to serve our communities and oversee water supply policies for the region.

I wish the Board and MWD continued success with the important initiatives you are pursuing on behalf of the citizens of all the member agencies. My sincerest thanks to Chair Adan Ortega, the Board, and the staff for this incredible experience.

Please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] should you have any questions.

Very Truly Yours,
Thai Viet Phan
Santa Ana Councilmember – Ward 1
City Council 31 – 5 8/4/2026
Planning and Building Agency
www.santa-ana.gov/pb
Item # 32
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
August 4, 2026
TOPIC: Ordinance Amendment No. 2026-01 to Amend Portions of Chapter 30 (Places of Historical and Architectural Significance) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code Relating to Modification of Historic Properties, Demolition by Neglect, Historic Property Transfer Disclosure, and Other Amendments of an Administrative Nature

AGENDA TITLE
Ordinance Amendment No. 2026-01 to Amend Several Sections of Chapter 30 (Places of Historical and Architectural Significance) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Relating to Modification of Historic Properties, Demolition by Neglect, Historic Property Transfer Disclosure, and Other Amendments of an Administrative Nature

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

1. Conduct a first reading and adopt an ordinance approving Ordinance Amendment No. 2026-01 to amend several sections of Chapter 30 (Places of Historical and Architectural Significance) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code relating to Modification of Historic Properties, Demolition by Neglect, Historic Property Transfer Disclosure, and other items of an administrative nature; and ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX entitled ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2026-01

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 30 (PLACES OF HISTORICAL AND

ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE) OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE

RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES,

DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT, HISTORIC PROPERTY TRANSFER

DISCLOSURE, AND OTHER ITEMS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE, AND

FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15060(c)(2), SECTION 15060(c)(3), AND SECTION 15061(b)(3), read by title only and waive further reading

2. Determine that, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the recommended action is exempt from further review under state CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), Section 15060(c)(3), and Section 15061(b)(3).

City Council 32 – 1 8/4/2026
Ordinance Amendment 2026-01: Chapter 30 - Places of Historical and Architectural Significance Ordinance (Citywide)
August 4, 2026

GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No

DISCUSSION
Background
During the November 7, 2024, meeting of the Historic Resources Commission (HRC), Planning Division staff presented a study session, at the HRC’s direction, regarding potential revisions to Chapter 30 of the SAMC. The presentation outlined regulatory options related to the following three topics:

1. Modification procedures for historic properties, including the regulation of alterations to a property’s internal setting;

2. Demolition by neglect of historic properties; and

3. Disclosure requirements for a property’s historic designation at the time of a real estate transfer.

At the same meeting, the HRC established an Ad-Hoc Committee to work with Planning Division staff on the development of revisions to Chapter 30 addressing these topics. The Ad-Hoc Committee consisted of commissioners Manuel J. Escamilla, Irma Jauregui, and Ignacio Rincon. The Committee and staff met on May 5, July 24, and October 16, 2025.

During the November 6, 2025, HRC meeting, Planning Division staff presented a study session that provided an overview of the ordinance revision process to date and summarized the recommended amendments. Commissioner Jauregui offered a recommendation for additional changes, requesting that a provision be added to require the historic status of a property to be recorded on its real estate profile.

On March 5, 2026, the HRC conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider Ordinance Amendment No. 2026-01. Following staff's presentation, Commission discussion, and public testimony, the Commission voted 7:0:1 (Commissioner Escamilla absent) to recommend City Council approval of the ordinance with several modifications.

The Commission’s recommended revisions included clarifying the definition of “internal setting” to expressly recognize features such as fencing and other site elements that contribute to a property’s historic character, and expanding the historic property transfer disclosure requirements to include additional locally designated historic areas, including Specific Development No. 40 (Heninger Park). These recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance.

Revisions Since Historic Resources Commission Recommendation Following the Historic Resources Commission’s recommendation, the City Council approved Ordinance No. NS-3097, which dissolved the HRC and reassigned its historic preservation powers and duties to the Planning Commission. Accordingly, Ordinance Amendment No. 2026-01 has been revised to reflect the Planning Commission as the City’s historic preservation review authority and to ensure continuity in the administration City Council 32 – 2 8/4/2026
Ordinance Amendment 2026-01: Chapter 30 - Places of Historical and Architectural Significance Ordinance (Citywide)
August 4, 2026

of Chapter 30. Additional refinements were also made to improve clarity, establish administrative review procedures for routine historic property modifications, clarify review standards and definitions, expand the definition of internal setting to expressly include ribbon (Hollywood-style) driveways and fencing, and incorporate other technical and organizational revisions that improve implementation of the ordinance without altering its overall purpose or intent.

Topic 1: Modification Procedures for Historic Properties Table 1: Summary of Current and Proposed Regulations — Modification Procedures for Historic Properties
Item Existing Chapter 30
Regulations
Proposed Chapter 30 Amendment
Definitions Defines “historic property” as
a designated building,
structure, object, or site but
does not clarify whether
portions of the site outside
the primary structure are
considered contributing to the
property’s historic character.

Section 30-1.5 revises “historic property,”
establishes definitions for internal setting,
primary facade, secondary elevation,
character-defining feature, substantially
visible, substantially obstruct, and other
preservation terminology to improve clarity
and provide objective review standards.

Modification
procedures
Establishes regulations
requiring approval through a
Certificate of Appropriateness
for exterior modifications to
designated historic
properties.

Section 30-6 establishes administrative review
as the default process for modifications to
historic properties, with Planning Commission
review limited to specified major modifications
identified in Chapter 30. Requires all
modifications to be evaluated primarily using
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

Internal Setting None. Clarifies that historic review may apply to significant site features, including
landscaping, fencing, hardscaping, ribbon
(Hollywood-style) driveways, and spatial
relationships, that contribute to a property’s
historic character.

Routine maintenance None. Section 30-6(h) establishes a new exemption providing that routine maintenance of historic
properties is exempt from the modification
requirements of Section 30-6.

The proposed amendments comprehensively reorganize the City’s procedures for reviewing modifications to designated historic properties by establishing a clear, objective framework that distinguishes between modifications eligible for administrative approval and those requiring Planning Commission review. Rather than requiring Planning Commission review for nearly all exterior modifications, the ordinance establishes administrative review by the Executive Director, or designee, as the default approval process and reserves Planning Commission review for a defined list of major modifications that have the greatest potential to affect the character-defining features, historic setting, or integrity of a historic property.

City Council 32 – 3 8/4/2026
Ordinance Amendment 2026-01: Chapter 30 - Places of Historical and Architectural Significance Ordinance (Citywide)
August 4, 2026

This approach improves administrative efficiency while ensuring that projects with the greatest potential to impact historic resources continue to receive public review.

Conversely, modifications not specifically identified for Planning Commission review may be approved administratively by the Executive Director, or designee, through issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness upon finding that the proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and does not substantially impair the character-defining features, historic setting, or integrity of the historic property. This administrative review process encompasses the majority of routine rehabilitation projects, including many minor exterior modifications, repairs, and alterations that are compatible with the historic resource.

The proposed amendments also expand and clarify the City’s review authority by recognizing that a historic property’s significance may extend beyond the principal structure to include its internal setting. The ordinance refines the definition of “historic property” and establishes objective definitions for terms including “internal setting,” “primary facade,” “secondary elevation,” and “character-defining feature.” The amendments further clarify that historic review may apply to significant site features, including landscaping, hardscaping, fencing, and ribbon (Hollywood-style) driveways, where such features contribute to the property’s historic character or are identified in official designation records. These additions provide greater clarity and consistency in the administration of Chapter 30 and reduce ambiguity during project review.

Topic 2: Demolition by Neglect
Table 2: Summary of Current and Proposed Regulations — Demolition by Neglect Item Existing Chapter 30
Regulations
Proposed Chapter 30 Amendment
Definitions No definition of demolition by
neglect.

Section 30-1.5 establishes a definition of
“demolition by neglect” to clarify when
deterioration of a historic property resulting
from willful or negligent failure to maintain the
property constitutes demolition by neglect.

Demolition of historic
properties
Chapter 30 establishes
procedures for review of
demolition requests for
historic properties but does
not regulate deterioration
resulting from deferred
maintenance or neglect.

Sections 30-7(d) and 30-8 establish
procedures for identifying, notifying, and
enforcing demolition by neglect violations. The
ordinance clarifies that a determination by the
Building Official that a property is a dangerous
building does not preclude a finding of
demolition by neglect and authorizes
enforcement remedies, including temporary
restrictions on discretionary approvals and
permits for new construction until violations
are corrected.

Minimum
maintenance
No minimum maintenance
standards for designated
historic properties.

Section 30-8 establishes objective minimum
maintenance standards requiring historic
properties to be maintained in a manner that
City Council 32 – 4 8/4/2026
Ordinance Amendment 2026-01: Chapter 30 - Places of Historical and Architectural Significance Ordinance (Citywide)
August 4, 2026

Item Existing Chapter 30
Regulations
Proposed Chapter 30 Amendment
standards for historic
properties
preserves their historic character and eligibility
for designation. The section identifies
conditions constituting violations and
authorizes the Building Official to enforce
compliance.

Enforcement
Procedures
No specific enforcement
procedures addressing
demolition by neglect.

Establishes notice, compliance, correction,
and administrative appeal procedures that
provide property owners due process while
allowing the City to proactively address
deterioration before irreversible damage
occurs.

Because the current ordinance contains no minimum maintenance standards, no objective criteria for identifying demolition by neglect, and no enforcement procedures or penalties to address deterioration before demolition occurs, the proposed amendments establish a firsttime comprehensive framework to proactively preserve designated historic resources.

Rather than regulating only the demolition of historic resources, the ordinance provides the City with tools to address conditions that, if left uncorrected, could ultimately result in the irreversible loss of a property’s historic character or structural integrity.

New Section 30-8 establishes minimum maintenance standards requiring owners of designated historic properties to maintain exterior building elements, structural systems, weather protection, architectural features, and other character-defining elements in a manner that preserves the property’s historic significance. The ordinance identifies objective conditions that constitute violations, including deterioration resulting from water intrusion, structural instability, defective roofing, exterior material failure, and other forms of deferred maintenance that threaten the continued preservation of the historic resource.

The amendments also establish a structured enforcement process that emphasizes voluntary compliance before enforcement. When demolition by neglect is identified, property owners are provided notice of the violation, an opportunity to correct the deficiencies within prescribed timeframes, and administrative appeal rights consistent with due process principles. If violations remain uncorrected, the ordinance authorizes the City to pursue appropriate enforcement remedies, including temporary limitations on discretionary land use approvals and permits for new construction until the violation has been resolved.

Importantly, the ordinance clarifies that a determination by the Building Official that a historic property constitutes a dangerous building does not preclude a separate finding of demolition by neglect. This distinction recognizes that public safety enforcement and historic preservation serve complementary, but separate, regulatory purposes. A property may require immediate action to address unsafe conditions while simultaneously remaining subject to preservation requirements intended to minimize the unnecessary loss of historic resources.

City Council 32 – 5 8/4/2026
Ordinance Amendment 2026-01: Chapter 30 - Places of Historical and Architectural Significance Ordinance (Citywide)
August 4, 2026

These amendments provide the City with a proactive framework for preserving designated historic resources by encouraging routine maintenance, establishing objective enforcement standards, and providing clear procedures that balance property owner rights with the City’s interest in protecting its historic and cultural resources.

Topic 3: Historic Property Disclosure
Table 3: Summary of Current and Proposed Regulations — Historic Property Disclosure Item Existing Chapter 30
Regulations
Proposed Chapter 30 Amendment
Definitions Chapter 30 does not
currently define terms
related to historic property
disclosure.

Section 30-1.5 adds definitions for
“buyer,” “owner,” and “real property
transaction” to support implementation
of historic property disclosure
requirements.

Historic property disclosure No requirement to
disclose a property's
historic designation during
a real property
transaction.

Section 30-11 requires sellers of
designated historic properties and
properties located within designated
historic districts or other specified
locally designated historic areas to
provide written notice of the property’s
historic designation to prospective
buyers prior to transfer of title.

Purchasing a designated historic property carries responsibilities that may differ from those associated with non-designated properties. Owners of historic properties are subject to Chapter 30 of the SAMC, including requirements governing modifications, demolition, and ongoing maintenance intended to preserve the property's historic character. Providing notice of a property’s historic designation before the transfer of title helps ensure prospective purchasers are informed of these responsibilities and can make purchasing decisions with a clear understanding of the applicable regulations.

Although a property’s historic designation is generally a matter of public record, that information may not be readily identified during a typical real estate transaction. The proposed amendments therefore require sellers to provide written notice when a property is designated as historic or is located within a designated historic district or other specified locally designated historic area prior to the transfer of title. This requirement promotes transparency by helping prospective purchasers understand the regulatory framework that may affect future alterations, maintenance obligations, and available preservation incentives.

Additional Administrative and Clarifying Amendments
The proposed amendments also expand and clarify several definitions, including character-defining feature, primary facade, secondary elevation, substantially visible from the public right-of-way, substantially obstruct, and routine maintenance, to establish more City Council 32 – 6 8/4/2026
Ordinance Amendment 2026-01: Chapter 30 - Places of Historical and Architectural Significance Ordinance (Citywide)
August 4, 2026

objective review standards and reduce ambiguity during project review. The ordinance also clarifies that character-defining features and a property’s internal setting are generally identified through California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms prepared during designation, or through other documentation accepted by the City consistent with professional preservation standards.

Additional amendments would require the City Council to adopt objective design guidelines if establishing a new local historic district, ensuring that clear standards for project review, maintenance, and permitted alterations are available at the time of designation. The ordinance also updates the public noticing provisions to replace an outdated Government Code reference that no longer reflects current statutory language.

Rather than creating a new noticing requirement, the amendment codifies the City’s longstanding practice of providing mailed notice to property owners and at least one occupant of each tenant space within the required noticing radius for public hearings involving historic preservation matters. These revisions clarify the ordinance, ensure consistency with current law, and accurately reflect the City’s established administrative procedures. The ordinance also clarifies application procedures and revises appeal procedures to reflect the reassignment of historic preservation responsibilities from the Historic Resources Commission to the Planning Commission.

These amendments improve the administration of Chapter 30 by providing greater procedural clarity, incorporating objective preservation standards, and ensuring that the City’s historic preservation regulations remain consistent with current professional practices and the City's organizational structure.

General Plan Consistency
The Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan provides guidance to ensure that the identification, designation, protection, and stewardship of Santa Ana’s architectural, historical, cultural, and archaeological resources are integrated into the City’s planning, development, and permitting processes. The Historic Preservation Element recognizes that preserving the City’s historic resources strengthens community identity, enhances neighborhood character, and contributes to Santa Ana’s unique sense of place.

Accordingly, the proposed amendments are consistent with the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan and further Goal HP-1 (Historic Areas and Resources), including Policies HP-1.1 (Architectural and Design Standards), HP-1.2 (Federal Standards for Rehabilitation), HP-1.3 (Historic Districts and Design Standards), HP-1.4 (Protecting Resources), and HP-2.1 (Resource Stewardship).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, adoption of the proposed ordinance is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the action may have a significant effect on the environment.

City Council 32 – 7 8/4/2026
Ordinance Amendment 2026-01: Chapter 30 - Places of Historical and Architectural Significance Ordinance (Citywide)
August 4, 2026

The ordinance establishes administrative and regulatory requirements related to the modification, maintenance, and transfer of historic properties and does not authorize physical construction or development.

Additionally, the action is not a project pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2026-19, will be filed for this Project.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the proposed ordinance.

EXHIBITS

1. Ordinance Amendment No. 2026-01

2. March 5, 2026 Historic Resources Commission Staff Report and Exhibits Submitted By: Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP, Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency
Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
City Council 32 – 8 8/4/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2026-01 AN ORDINANCE

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 30 (PLACES OF

HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE) OF

THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE

MODIFICATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES,

DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT, HISTORIC PROPERTY

TRANSFER DISCLOSURE, AND OTHER ITEMS OF AN

ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE, AND FINDING THE ACTION

TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER STATE
CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15060(c)(2), SECTION
15060(c)(3), AND SECTION15061(b)(3)
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2024, the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) established an Ad-Hoc Committee to assist staff with the Committee in preparing an ordinance establishing procedures for the modification of historic properties and regulations addressing demolition by neglect and historic property disclosure; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022, the City Council adopted the comprehensive General Plan Update, including the Historic Preservation Element, which supports the ongoing preservation, protection, and enhancement of the City’s historic and cultural resources; promotes the identification, designation, and stewardship of historic properties and districts; encourages rehabilitation and adaptive reuse consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards; and integrates historic preservation into the City’s broader land use, housing, economic development, and community planning efforts to maintain Santa Ana’s unique architectural character and sense of place; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Amendment No. 2026-01 amending Chapter 30 (Places of Historical and Architectural Significance) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Santa Ana General Plan, including Historic Preservation Goal HP-1 (Historic Areas and Resources) and Policies HP-1.1 (Architectural and Design Standards), HP-1.2 (Federal Standards for Rehabilitation), HP1.3 (Historic Districts and Design Standards), HP-1.4 (Protecting Resources), and HP-2.1 (Resource Stewardship); and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance is necessary for the preservation, maintenance, and long-term protection of designated historic properties and historic districts within the City; to establish clear and objective procedures and standards for the review of modifications to historic resources, including alterations to internal settings; to prevent demolition by neglect and the deterioration of historic fabric; and to require disclosure of historic designation during real property transactions in order to promote awareness and stewardship; and
City Council 32 – 9 8/4/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

WHEREAS, the ordinance is consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan and Historic Preservation Element and reflects best practices used by other Certified Local Governments and jurisdictions with established historic preservation programs, thereby strengthening the City’s ability to safeguard its cultural, architectural, and historic resources for current and future generations; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2026, the Historic Resources Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider Ordinance Amendment No. 2026-01, received public testimony, and thereafter recommended that the City Council approve the proposed ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2026, the City Council approved for first reading Ordinance No. NS-3096 adopting the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget, which included direction to dissolve the Historic Resources Commission and reassign its duties to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2026, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance amending the Santa Ana Municipal Code to dissolve the Historic Resources Commission, reassign its duties to the Planning Commission, and amend Chapter 30 (Places of Historical and Architectural Significance) to replace references to the Historic Resources Commission with the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2026, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. NS-3097 on second reading, which upon its effective date will dissolve the Historic Resources Commission and reassign its historic preservation powers and duties to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the amendments contained herein are intended to maintain continuity in the administration of Chapter 30 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, ensure that historic preservation regulations continue to be administered without interruption, and align Ordinance Amendment No. 2026-01 with the City Council’s actions dissolving the Historic Resources Commission and reassigning its responsibilities to the Planning Commission.

WHEREAS, on August 4, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public meeting to consider Ordinance Amendment No. 2026-01 and received public comment prior to taking action on the proposed ordinance.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the City Council.

Section 2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, adoption of the proposed ordinance is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), as it can City Council 32 – 10 8/4/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the action may have a significant effect on the environment. The ordinance establishes administrative and regulatory requirements related to the modification, maintenance, and transfer of historic properties and does not authorize physical construction or development. Additionally, the action is not a project pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Section 3. Section 30-1 (Register of historical properties) of Chapter 30 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-1. Register of historical properties.

The planning commission may, by resolution and at a noticed public hearing noticed in accordance with Section 30-2.5, designate as historic 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 (“register”). 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. For CEQA purposes, consistent with State law, properties listed on the register shall be presumed to be historical resources under Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 unless otherwise determined by the lead agency.

Section 4. Section 30-1.5 (Definitions) of Chapter 30 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-1.5. Definitions.
(a) Buyer means a transferee in a real property transaction, and includes, but is not limited to, a person who executes an offer to purchase real property from a seller through an agent, or who seeks the services of an agent with the object of entering into a real property transaction.
(b) Certificate of appropriateness means the method by which modifications to a historic property are approved pursuant to Section 30-6, which may be issued administratively by the planning department staff or by action of the planning commission, as required by code. approves modifications to a historic property pursuant to section 30-6.
(c) Character-defining feature means any physical element, material, form, spatial arrangement, architectural detail, or environmental characteristic that conveys the historic, cultural, or architectural significance of a historic property or historic district. Character-defining features may include, but are not limited to, building form and massing; roof shape and materials; exterior cladding and finishes; City Council 32 – 11 8/4/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

window and door configurations; porches, balconies, fences, and other architectural details; workmanship and materials; associated landscape features, hardscaping, vegetation, and spatial relationships between structures and their setting. Character-defining features shall be those identified in the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms prepared for the designation of the property, or as otherwise documented by planning department staff or the City’s consultants who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History or Historic Architecture.
(d) 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. (e) Demolition by neglect means a condition in which a historic property has not been physically razed or removed, but through the property owner’s willful or negligent acts or omissions, including failure to maintain the property in accordance with the minimum maintenance standards of this code, has deteriorated to the point that it is unsafe, uninhabitable, or incapable of reasonable rehabilitation or preservation as a historic resource, such that the resulting loss of structural or historic integrity, or character-defining features is functionally equivalent to demolition.
(f) Hardscaping means such features, including, but not limited to, driveways (including ribbon or Hollywood-style driveways), walking paths, planters, patios, playing courts, parking areas, and internal circulation systems, typically constructed with concrete, asphalt, paving stones, tiles, or wood. (g) 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. A historic property shall include its internal setting, as defined in this section.
(h) Internal setting means the portion of a parcel or parcels containing a historic property that lies outside the footprint or footprints of existing building(s) and that contributes to the property’s historic character through its spatial organization, landscaping, hardscaping, fencing, or relationship to the principal structure. The internal setting includes those areas that are visible from the public right-of-way, including front yard areas subject to fencing regulations of this Code, or are otherwise identified as character-defining in the property’s designation record, California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms, or other documentation accepted by the City.
(i) Landscape feature means a constructed or fabricated accessory item added to a landscape, such as a pool, trellis, fountain, planter, or other landscape accessory.
(j) Landscaping means the collective or component live vegetation plantings on a property, including but not limited to, grass, plants, shrubs, hedges, and trees.

City Council 32 – 12 8/4/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

(k) Local historic district means a collection or group of historic properties within a defined area.
(l) Modification means any change, alteration, restoration, remodeling, rehabilitation, construction, or relocation of the physical exterior of a historic structure historic property. Modification shall not include painting. Modification shall not include ordinary repainting of previously painted surfaces in the same or substantially similar color and finish; provided, however, that repainting, overpainting, restoration, alteration, concealment, removal, relocation, or destruction of a designated object shall constitute a modification subject to this chapter.
(m) Owner means any person, co-partnership, association, corporation, or fiduciary having legal or equitable title or any interest in real property. (n) Primary facade means the principal exterior elevation of a historic property that was intentionally designed to face a public street or other prominent public space and that contains the primary entrance or the most architecturally significant composition of doors, windows, and character-defining features. A historic property may have more than one primary facade where multiple elevations were designed to function as principal elevations, including corner buildings or buildings with dual street frontages. The determination of a primary facade shall be based on historic documentation, architectural design, orientation, and the property’s historic relationship to the public right-of-way. (o) Real property transaction means the sale or exchange of any real property. (p) Register of historical properties means the official list of historic properties in the city.
(q) Routine maintenance means actions to preserve historic features without changing design, materials, or appearance (e.g., patching roof, repainting in like color, caulking). Work characterized as routine maintenance are actions that do not require a building permit; maintenance work requiring a building permit may be considered a minor exterior modification, for which an applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness.
(r) Secondary elevation means an exterior elevation of a historic property that is subordinate to the primary facade and was not intentionally designed to serve as a principal public-facing elevation. Secondary elevations are typically located along the side or rear of a historic property and generally contain fewer or less prominent character-defining features than the primary facade. A secondary elevation may nevertheless contain character-defining features and shall not be presumed to lack historic significance solely because it is not a primary facade. (s) Substantially obstruct means to significantly diminish or block the visibility of a historic property or its character-defining features from a public street or sidewalk in a manner that alters the property’s historic setting or public presence. In determining whether a view is substantially obstructed, the City may consider factors including, but not limited to, the height, massing, and density of landscaping; distance from the public right-of-way; location relative to key City Council 32 – 13 8/4/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

architectural features; seasonal and long-term vegetation growth; and the degree to which the proposed landscaping interferes with the ability to perceive the historic property as a whole.
(t) Substantially visible from the public right-of-way means that a structure or modification would be visible from a public street or sidewalk without obstruction by existing buildings, fencing, or existing mature landscaping and would be of sufficient height, mass, or location to affect the visual character of the historic property or its setting.

Section 5. Section 30-2 (Criteria for selection) of Chapter 30 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 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 planning commission finds that one (1) or more of the following conditions are present 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 of 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 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 pPlanning and bBuilding aAgency. Upon adoption of a resolution of designation and placement of the property on the register, such City Council 32 – 14 8/4/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

resolution 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.
(c) Designation decisions of the planning commission shall be subject to the appeal procedures provided in section 30-9.

Section 6. Section 30-2.3 (Removal from the city register of historical properties) of Chapter 30 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:

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 noticed in accordance with Section 30-2.5, 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 no longer meets the criteria for being placed on the city register, as contained in Section 30-2 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 30-89.

Section 7. Section 30-2.5 (Notice of public hearing.) of Chapter 30 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 30-2.5. Notice of public hearing.
(a) Notice of any public hearing required pursuant to this chapter shall be provided to all property owners, and at least one (1) occupant per tenant space having a valid United States Postal Service address, within a five hundred-foot (500-foot) radius of the subject property within the city boundary.

City Council 32 – 15 8/4/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

(b) Such notice shall be mailed not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the scheduled public hearing and shall include the date, time, place, and a general description of the matter to be considered.
(c) Failure of any person to receive notice shall not affect the validity of any action taken pursuant to this chapter.

Section 8. Section 30-3 (Application of state historical building code) of Chapter 30 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 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 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.

Section 9. Section 30-4 (Local historic districts) of Chapter 30 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:

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. Notice of the public hearing shall:
(1) Be mailed by first-class mail to the owner of record of each property proposed for inclusion within the local historic district, as shown on the latest available Orange County assessment roll, not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing;
(2) Be mailed by first-class mail, not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing, to the owners of record and at least one occupant of each tenant space of all real property located, in whole or in part, within five hundred (500) feet of the proposed local historic district boundaries, as shown on the latest available Orange County assessment roll; (3) Be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city in accordance with applicable state law;
(4) State the date, time, and place of the public hearing, identify the proposed local historic district, describe the purpose and effect of the proposed City Council 32 – 16 8/4/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

designation, and advise that interested persons may appear and be heard; and
(5) Be supplemented by any additional notice the executive director or designee determines appropriate to provide meaningful public participation. (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 shall, by ordinance, may adopt design and development standards guidelines for the district which shall include objective standards for review, maintenance expectations, and permitted alterations for the local historic district. (d) Following designation of a local historic district by the city council, the city clerk shall provide notice of the action to the owners of record of all properties within the designated district and shall cause the designation to be reflected in the city’s official records.

Section 10. Section 30-6 (Modification of historic properties) of Chapter 30 of the SAMC is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 30-6. Modification of historic properties.
(a) Administrative Review.
(1) Except for modifications expressly requiring Planning Commission review, modifications to historic properties shall be reviewed and acted upon administratively by the Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency, or designee. The Executive Director, or designee, shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to this subsection upon finding that the proposed modification is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and does not substantially impair the characterdefining features, historic setting, or integrity of the historic property. Issuance of City Council 32 – 17 8/4/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to this subsection shall not require a public hearing.
(2) Minor exterior modifications to a historic property are subject to administrative review and approval by the Executive Director, or designee, and may include, but are not limited to:
a. Like-for-like repairs or replacements using the same material and style as the original;
b. Restoration of original architectural features that are documented through pictorial evidence;
c. Skylights, light tubes, or solar panels that are located on rearfacing roof slopes and are not visible from the public right-of-way; d. Mechanical equipment, such as HVAC units or water heaters, that satisfies the Uniform Code requirements and the Santa Ana Municipal Code;
e. Structural, seismic, fire, accessibility, or other alterations required by the building official, Fire Marshal, or other applicable regulatory authority to address life-safety, accessibility, or code compliance, provided that such work is designed to minimize impacts to character-defining features and is consistent, to the extent feasible, with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards;
e. New and replacement exterior light fixtures;
f. New and replacement signs or sign repairs that do not affect a sign identified as a character-defining feature;
g. Structural or foundation repairs; and
h. Patio shade structures that are not visible from the public right-ofway i. Creation of new window or door openings, enlargement or modification of existing openings, or installation of replacement windows or doors on elevations that are not substantially visible from the public right-of-way, provided the work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and does not substantially impair character-defining features, the historic setting, or the integrity of the historic property.
(3) Minor modifications to the internal setting of a historic property are subject to administrative review and approval by the Executive Director, or designee, and may include, but are not limited to:
a. Construction of a new accessory building, excluding accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, that would not be substantially visible from the public right-of-way. Administrative review under this subsection shall be limited to the architectural design, scale, massing, materials, placement, and compatibility of City Council 32 – 18 8/4/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

the structure with the historic property and its internal setting in order to preserve character-defining spatial relationships and historic context. Such review shall be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. b. Like-for-like replacement of a hardscaping feature, including a driveway, walkway, or parking lot, that is character-defining, or installation of a permanent landscape feature that would not substantially alter the historic setting of the property; c. Removal or replacement of a landscape feature, such as a pool, fountain, or trellis, that is not character-defining or addition of new landscape features; or
d. Changes to character-defining landscaping on a historic property categorized as Key or Contributive, or minor changes to the landscaping of a property categorized as Landmark that would not substantially alter the form or character of the landscaping. (ab) Planning Commission Review
(1) No major exterior physical modifications or major modifications to the internal setting of a historic property identified in subsections (c) and (d), other than those identified by the historic resources commission for administrative approval by city staff, shall be permitted with respect to an historic structure property until the planning commission approves such request by resolution at a duly noticed public hearing noticed in accordance with Section 30-2.5 and issues a cCertificate of aAppropriateness. The planning commission shall issue the cCertificate of aAppropriateness upon finding that the proposed modification(s) does not substantially change the character and integrity of the historic property.

A project consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties will not substantially change a characterdefining feature of the property or the general character and integrity of the historic property. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards shall be the primary criteria for evaluating proposed modifications. Where local guidelines exist, they shall supplement but not conflict with the Secretary’s Standards. The minutes of the planning commission meeting shall serve as the official record. (c) The following major exterior physical modifications shall require Planning Commission approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness:
(1) Demolition of a character-defining feature or portion of a historic property; (2) Construction of a new attached addition that:
a. Is located on, attached to, or substantially alters a primary facade, except that on a property containing more than one primary facade, the Executive Director, or designee, may administratively approve an addition on an additional primary facade upon finding that the addition is subordinate in height, scale, and massing and does not substantially impair the character-defining features, historic setting, or integrity of the historic property; or
City Council 32 – 19 8/4/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

b. Is substantially visible from the public right-of-way and is not subordinate in height, scale, and massing to the historic property. For purposes of this section, an addition is subordinate when it is visually secondary and smaller in scale, massing, and prominence than the historic property such that the addition does not overwhelm, obscure, or compete with the historic property or its character-defining features.
(3) Creation of new window or door openings, enlargement or infill of existing openings, or modifications that substantially alter the historic pattern of fenestration on a primary facade or other elevation identified as characterdefining in the property’s designation record and is substantially visible from the public right-of-way;
(4) Alteration, relocation, concealment, removal, overpainting, or destruction of a designated object;
(5) Any modification not otherwise identified in this section that the Executive Director determines, based upon substantial evidence in the record, would result in the demolition or substantial impairment of a character-defining feature of the historic property.
(d) Major modifications to the internal setting of historic property that require planning commission approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness may include, but are not limited to:
(1) Construction of a new detached accessory building, excluding accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, or relocation of an existing building such that the new or relocated building would be substantially visible from the public right-of-way. Review by the planning commission shall be limited to the architectural design, scale, massing, materials, placement, and compatibility of the structure with the historic property and its internal setting in order to preserve character-defining spatial relationships, views, and the historic context of the site. Such review shall be consistent with the powers and duties of the planning commission as set forth in Section 2-350 of this Code and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
(2) Changes to landscaping, hardscaping, and landscape features where:
a. The feature has been specifically identified as character-defining in the property’s California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 form prepared at the time of the property’s historic listing; or
b. The proposed work would substantially alter the historic setting of a property categorized as Landmark.
(be)An application for exterior modification of a historic structure historic property or a modification to the internal setting of a historic property shall be accompanied, except for those subject to administrative approval by city staff pursuant to City Council 32 – 20 8/4/2026
Ordinance No. NS-XXX