Correspondence - Non Agenda — Santa Ana City Council, September 15, 2026

Becerra, Alexis
From: Harkiran Kahlon <
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2026 3:13 PM
To: eComment; Amezcua, Valerie; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David
Subject: Fwd: Seeking your kind attention and assistancewith the situation Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Good Afternoon, All City council members,
I am sharing these emails with you to request that you write to the United States Attorney' s Office for the Central District of California and the FBI Los Angeles Field Office, urging them to take immediate action on the matters that I have reported to them.

I am intended to share my situation as I am tired of reaching out to agencies and notifying them of my situation. There are "few individuals" associated with government agency(likely a law enforcement agency)
who targeted me at behest of my former employer( a private business owner) and completely ruined my life. They are targeting me for past 4.5 years and dragged me through very desperate situation to make sure they themselves and their client( my former employer and his associates) evade complete accountability for their thoroughly unlawful conduct against me without facing any legal repercussions. I am living through very difficult time. I don't have any resources, any financial or family support and they manipulate my vulnerable situation to target me openly in this manner. From past 4.5 years, I have been continuously harassed, abused, threatened, profiled, forced to leave jobs and they doing so by misusing their official position and by manipulating the government agency resources. I have been overpowered and thrashed by these individuals by misusing the agency resources.

I ran into a situation where my former employer— DSM Hospitality LLC, Castaic, California, and SPK Hospitality LLC, Santa Clarita, California, owned by Pankaj Patel— who happened to be an extremely hate-filled individual, enlisted the assistance of a few individuals associated with a government agency ( a law enforcement agency) to target me. As I understand, He enlisted the assistance of these individuals through the business association with which he was affiliated.

These individuals associated with a government agency misused their official positions and authority to target me both at my workplace and outside the workplace. Since then, they have been trying to fabricate negative allegations against me in order to gain leverage over me and prevent me from taking legal action against my former employer and his associates who worked for him and, unlike me, shared the same religion, culture, native state, and native language as my former employer.
i
This situation began in 2022. By that time, I had been working for my former employer for almost two years. He was not treating me properly and was under the impression that I might eventually file legal action against him. Acting preemptively, he enlisted the assistance of these individuals affiliated with a government agency by using his business contacts within that business association. Since the commencement of this targeted campaign against me, these individuals affiliated with a government agency have also engaged an Iranian organized group to target me.

These individuals assessed my circumstances beforehand and determined that I was a vulnerable individual— working an ordinary job, with no family support and limited financial resources.

They manipulated my vulnerable circumstances as an immigrant to target me openly in an abusive and threatening manner to dissuade me from filing legal complaint against my former employer with relevant agencies. They have made numerous attempts since then to fabricate negative allegations against me to get leverage over me to prevent me from taking legal action against my former employer and his associates. They have been targeting me since October 2022 with complete impunity and without any fear of facing consequences for their unlawful conduct.

After a series of events that took place at my former workplace, I realized that I was being systematically targeted by my former employer with the assistance of certain individuals, both at the workplace and outside the workplace. Fearing for my safety and security, I decided to leave my job. Contrary to what I had hoped, however, leaving my job and the town where I had worked did not put an end to these targeted actions against me.

I had worked for my former employer at two of his properties— one in Castaic and the other in Canyon Country. After leaving my job, I relocated to the San Fernando Valley, approximately 2S miles south of Castaic. These individuals followed me there. Since then, they have continued pursuing and targeting me inside virtually every type of business establishment, including cafes, restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, and gyms, as well as public institutions such as libraries, religious establishments, and my subsequent workplaces.

They repeatedly sent people after me inside these establishments to provoke arguments and confrontations in an attempt to elicit a reaction from me. Their objective was to use any such reaction against me to discredit me as an individual and to delegitimize the complaints that I have made against them.

They interfered in my subsequent workplaces with the same objective— to fabricate allegations against me. Although they failed to do so, I was nevertheless forced to leave one job after another as a result of their actions. They prevented me from obtaining employment with the Los Angeles Police Department as a police officer and obstructed my efforts to attend law school.

Additionally, after rendering me unemployed, these individuals interfered in my accident casein an effort to delay my compensation. Their objective was to force me to leave the Los Angeles region, or even the state altogether, so that I would no longer be in a position to file complaints against them or against their client— my former employer and his associates.

They also prevented me from securing legal assistance. Without any legal guidance, I initially filed complaints with the state employment agencies. These individuals affiliated with a 2 government agency interfered in those complaints as well. The deputy, Isabel Arreola, employed with the California State Labor Department, who was handling my complaint, knowingly declined my complaint without following the established procedures and knowingly issued official correspondence under an incorrect name. When I brought this to her attention, she refused to reissue the official correspondence under my correct name.

I filed an appeal. After ten months, the appeal was denied, and once again the decision letter was issued under an incorrect name, effectively indicating that no complaint had ever been filed by me. They knowingly harassed me at the direction of these individuals.

As a result, employees working at a California state employment agency not only disregarded the complaint filed by an employee and sided with individuals enlisted by my former employer— a private businessman— but also went beyond their official responsibilities to harass me at their behest.

I have documented all of these matters in detail, including the dates, times, locations, and the names of the individuals involved.

I went to the police station seeking assistance, but they refused to help me and instead humiliated me. Throughout this entire ordeal, these few individuals affiliated with a government agency, who were targeting me at the behest of a private business owner, consistently overpowered me by misusing their official positions and by manipulating the agency' s resources, authority, and influence.

Throughout this period, they repeatedly signaled to me that they would not allow me to take any legal action against their client— a private business owner who was allegedly funding these individuals through a business association under the guise of business contributions or organizational support.

When these individuals did not stop harassing, abusing, racially profiling, assaulting, and threatening me on a daily basis, I filed complaints against them with the United States Attorney' s Office in January 202S and the FBI Los Angeles Field Office in June 2025. However, so far, no action has been taken against these individuals, and they continue to harass me on a daily basis.

They have been targeting me relentlessly for the past 43 years. Initially, their objective was to prevent me from reaching out to state and federal agencies to report their unlawful actions against me, which were carried out at the behest of a private business owner. Now, their objective appears to be preventing me from consistently following up on the complaints I have filed against them for their unlawful and unjust actions.

There also remains a clear threat to my safety, as their actions indicate that they will not stop until I abandon my efforts to seek legal redress and accountability.

Over the past 43 years, these individuals have made numerous attempts to fabricate allegations against me. Although they have not succeeded in doing so, I have suffered an enormous amount of abuse, assaults, threats, and severe harassment at their hands throughout this period on a daily basis.

Beyond violating my civil and legal rights, these individuals have violated my most basic rights, freedoms, and liberties— rights that belong to every human being regardless of their location in the world.
3 The only way they were able to carry out these actions was by misusing their official capacity and manipulating agency resources to further their own interests, as well as the interests of the business associations and individuals affiliated with them, ensuring that they continued receiving monetary benefits through those associations.

I submitted a detailed complaint draft that included numerous incidents that occurred over the past several years, beginning from the time these individuals started targeting me in a vicious manner. The nature of the incidents described in my complaint leaves no room for even the slightest confusion or doubt regarding the involvement of government agency-affiliated individuals in those events.

These incidents were orchestrated setups intended to fabricate negative allegations against me, entangle me in legal trouble, and ensure that they, their client, and his associates could avoid accountability for their unlawful and unjust actions against me over the past 4.5 years.

The orchestrated setups described in my complaint draft could not have been carried out inside business establishments, public institutions, religious establishments, and my workplaces without coercing the management or employees of those establishments and institutions into participating or cooperating. They misled them and influenced them into cooperating with them and facilitating their unlawful actions against me inside their premises.

Now, because I reported these incidents in detail— including incidents that took place inside establishments equipped with surveillance cameras— these individuals affiliated with a government agency, who interfered with private businesses, public institutions, religious establishments, and my workplaces, and who misled them into facilitating their actions against me in order to fabricate allegations and create a false narrative, certainly do not want any federal investigation into this matter.

Such an investigation would not only expose the involvement of those establishments and institutions in facilitating these actions without any legal warrants or justification against me, but it would also uncover:

The extent to which these individuals are willing to misuse their official positions and abuse agency resources to target an individual like me in order to further their own interests, as well as the interests of those who allegedly provide monetary benefits to them.

The arrangement through which a private business owner could enlist the assistance of individuals affiliated with a government agency ( law enforcement agency) to target individuals like me, threaten them, abuse them, harass them, and take whatever actions necessary to prevent them from pursuing legal action against their client.

They are effectively shielding a private business owner from facing legal consequences for his unlawful conduct by using intimidation and pressure against the person seeking legal recourse.

I filed the complaint and submitted a complete complaint draft to the United States Attorney' s Office in January 2025. However, I had already notified the United States Attorney' s Office about my ongoing situation in March 2024.

In my complaint, I clearly stated that I was being targeted by a few individuals associated with a government agency. I did not file a complaint against the entire agency; rather, my complaint was specifically directed toward certain individuals associated with that agency. 4 Since then, I have continued notifying the United States Attorney' s Office and the U.S. Department of justice that these individuals have been relentlessly attempting to fabricate allegations against me. They have largely used people of color including people from my Punjabi Sikh community to carry out these actions because, in my view, doing so supports a narrative intended to counter my complaint against them.

None of these individuals— including people of color and members of my own Punjabi Sikh community— know my side of the story. They have been misled and manipulated by these individuals, who, in my view, have presented me in a negative light in order to influence their perception of me.

Those individuals never come forward and attempted to talk to me, to know my side of story.

They do not have the slightest understanding of my actual circumstances. They do not know how, over the past 43 years, these individuals affiliated with a government agency have relentlessly abused, harassed, assaulted, threatened, overpowered, and dehumanized me by misusing their official positions and manipulating agency resources, allegedly at the behest of a private business owner.

Those people were certainly not aware of the circumstances I have been forced to endure or the extremely difficult conditions I have been made to live through as a result of these actions. They were being misled, coerced and used by these individuals to further their interests.

Since I filed complaints against these individuals with the United States Attorney' s Office and the FBI, I have observed through their actions that they are now attempting to shift responsibility onto the agency itself.

Given that they have been misusing agency resources and their positions within the agency for several years, and have done so openly without apparent fear of legal consequences, it indicates that they not only have access to agency resources but also have the ability and freedom to misuse those resources as they deem appropriate. This further indicates that these individuals may hold positions of significant authority or rank within the agency.

The entire arrangement— which allows private business owners like my former employer to enlist individuals affiliated with a government agency to carry out actions that are unlawful in nature, in order to avoid accountability for their own unlawful conduct or to further their personal interests— relies heavily on the fact that these individuals have the authority, access, and influence within the agency to manipulate government resources for their own purposes and the purposes of those they are assisting.

The manner in which these individuals have relentlessly targeted me on a daily basis for the past several years is indicative of a highly organized approach to carrying out such prolonged campaigns of harassment, intimidation, and threats against individuals like me on behalf of private business owners.

It is common sense, and it does not require any law enforcement background to understand that:

These individuals are not carrying out such prolonged campaigns for free or voluntarily, while spending their own time, resources, efforts, and money on fuel and other expenses. They are not dedicating years to pursuing an individual, following him from place to place, and engaging in actions that carry a risk of exposure without some underlying motivation or benefit.

It is also difficult to believe that a single business owner could personally finance such a prolonged operation. For example, a private investigator whose role is limited to following, 5 monitoring, and gathering information on a subject typically charges significant fees based on hourly, daily, or contractual arrangements. A private investigator does not possess the same level of access to resources, authority, or capabilities as individuals affiliated with a government agency, nor can they perform the types of actions that these individuals have carried out. Yet even for these limited services, private investigators charge substantial amounts.

The point is that an individual business owner would not realistically be able to afford the cost of hiring a private investigator for years, let alone finance the involvement of multiple individuals in a 4.5-year campaign that continues to this day.

The nature, duration, and resources involved indicate the possibility of a broader arrangement in which these individuals receive financial benefits through business associations rather than directly from an individual business owner. However, I would refrain myself from making any such assumption or allegation regarding the possibility that there could be multiple such business associations tied to this arrangement and working with these individuals, even though it looks more likely given the enormous amount of time, extensive effort and resources these individuals spend to carry out such long campaigns spanning several years.

If the scale and consistency of this prolonged campaign demonstrate anything, it is the significant resources involved and the determination of those benefiting from this arrangement to preserve it and continue receiving financial benefits— even if it requires targeting individuals like me to the point of forcing them to abandon their efforts to seek legal redress, or made them to face more severe consequences.

These individuals have completely destroyed and devastated my life at the behest of a private business owner. They have taken away nearly five years of my life for something I did nothing to deserve.

In my complaint, I have provided information regarding the individual affiliated with a government agency who is leading this years- long abusive and threatening campaign against me.

This individual is described as a Caucasianmale, approximately 60 years of age, bald, and seemingly overweight, was driving Red Porsche suv on January 21, 2023, when he pursued me inside the parking lot of Encino commons, Encino, CA, and attempted to fabricate hit- and- run charge against me with help of African American individual operating Gold color Lexus SUV, possibly affiliated with same agency. I included incidents which were orchestrated setups in my complaint draft submitted with US Attorney Office and FBI involving this individual with exact date, day, time and location.

I also provided details about the individual who is leading the organized Iranian group. I included information regarding when and where I observed him, as well as his actions and involvement throughout this situation.

Along with numerous other Iranian individuals, he also involved his wife, daughter, and two sons in this campaign of harassment and abuse directed against me.

As I mentioned earlier, I notified multiple agencies in writing about this situation; however, I have not received any meaningful assistance so far.

I have been forced to resign from several jobs because of their unlawful interference in my workplaces and their attempts to fabricate allegations against me by coercing my coworkers. 6 They also prevented me from obtaining employment with the Los Angeles Police Department and from pursuing law school; the details of these matters have been included in my complaint draft.

They also attempted to forcibly remove me from the city. As a direct result of their unlawful actions against me, I lost multiple jobs, my health insurance, my vehicle, and my housing. I am now living through extremely difficult and unbearable circumstances.

Despite their efforts to prevent me from reaching out to government agencies and reporting their actions, I notified multiple agencies about this situation.

Given these circumstances, I have a reason to believe that these individuals are proactively contacting agencies and misusing their official authority once again in an attempt to downplay or dismiss the seriousness of this matter with a clear objective to ensure:
that the private business establishments, institutions, religious establishments, establishment management personnel, or individuals who were misled and coerced by them individuals to facilitate their actions against me will not be disposed, investigated or questioned by federal agencies
That these individuals themselves, along with my former employer— at whose behest they targeted me they targeted me and completely ruined my life, would evade all accountability and face no legal repercussions for their thoroughly unlawful conduct To summarize my situation in a few brief statements:

I am a resource- less individual who was rendered unemployed and unhoused, with no financial assistance and no family support. I am faced with multiple entities— including my former employer, his associates, the business association with which he was affiliated, individuals associated with a government agency, and an organized Iranian group— who have access to extensive resources and the ability to manipulate those resources.

For the past several years ( approximately 4. 5 years), these individuals and entities have subjected me to a prolonged campaign of abuse, harassment, and threats. They are the ones who have relentlessly targeted me, attempted to fabricate allegations against me, forced me to endure desperate circumstances, and completely shattered my life.

After putting me through all of this, they are now attempting to prevent any investigation into these matters and avoid accountability. To accomplish this, they are attempting to downplay the seriousness of the situation and actively attempting to create a narrative against me by using people of color, and more frequently individuals from my own community, because this would fit a narrative to counter my legitimate complaints against them.

This represents a gross misuse of agency resources and authority to further their own interests and the interests of those who enlisted their assistance. The damage caused to my life as a result of these actions has been irreparable.

My only path forward is for the FBI and the United States Attorney' s Office to open an investigation into the matters I have reported and take appropriate action based on my complaint, beginning with assisting me in obtaining a restraining order against the individuals who are primarily responsible for my current situation —

1. My former employer and associates:

Pankaj Patel and Kalpana Patel, along with their younger daughter and her husband Property owners at SPK Hospitality LLC and DSM Hospitality LLC. 7 Raj Patel and his cousin sister, Rani Vrutti Patel - Resident- Inn managers. They are related to husband & wife who manage the motel " El Cortez", located on Sepulveda Blvd in Van Nuys, CA.

Janak C. Patel - My replacement at DSM Hospitality LLC and Related to Raj Patel and Rani Vrutti Patel
Gunjan( My replacement at SPK Hospitality LLC) and his companion, Minal Patel.

2. Government- affiliated individual:

A Caucasianmale who pursued me on January 21, 2023, inside Encino Town Center, Encino, CA, operating a red Porsche SUV accompanied by an African American male inside a gold- colored Lexus SUV and were attempting to fabricate charges against me. This person appeared to be in charge of this campaign against me. Though there were several other individuals affiliated with a government agency are involved whose details and description is included in the complaint draft.

3. Iranian group and affiliates:

An Iranian group operative, his wife, two sons, and a daughter, all of whom have been complicit in a coordinated campaign against me.

An Iranian female identifying herself as Melody and her husband, who appeared to be close associates of Iranian group operative and have aided and abetted in these actions.

Details about these three entities are included in the complaint draft submitted with FBI field office, Los Angeles and USAttorney Office, Central District of California, Los Angeles.

I kindly request that you take some time from your busy schedule to write on my behalf to the FBI Los Angeles Field Office and the United States Attorney' s Office for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, requesting that they acknowledge receipt of my complaint and pursue an appropriate course of action.

I would sincerely appreciate your assistance and support with this matter.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Harkiran Singh Kahlon
Forwarded message----------
From: Harkiran Kahlon <
Date: Monday, July 27, 2026
Subject: Fwd: Attention- OIG DOJ, Mr. Akil Davis— Submission of Complaint with Criminal Section of Civil Rights Division To: " akil. davis@ic. fbi. gov" < akil. davis@ic. fbi. gov>, " amir. ehsaei@ic. fbi. gov" < amir. ehsaei@ic. fbi. gov>, patrick. grandy@ic. fbi. gov"< patrick. grandy@ic. fbi. gov>, " raiiv. maan@ic. fbi. gov" < raiiv. maan@ic. fbi. gov>, rhys. williams@ic. fbi. gov" < rhys. williams@ic. fbi. gov>, " robert. molvar@ic. fbi. gov"< robert. molvar@ic. fbi. gov> Cc: Gavin. newsom@gov. ca. gov" < Gavin. newsom@gov. ca. gov>, " governor@governor. ca. gov" governor@governor. ca. gov>, " ann. oleary@gov. ca. gov" < ann. oleary@gov. ca. gov>, " ann. matosantos@gov. ca. gov" ann. matosantos@gov. ca. gov>, " ben. chida@gov. ca. gov" < ben. chida@gov. ca. gov>, " richard. figueroa@gov. ca. gov" richard. figueroa@gov. ca. gov>, " catherine. baxter@gov. ca. gov" < catherine. baxter@gov. ca. gov>, rheys. williams@gov. ca. gov" < rheys. williams@gov. ca. gov>, " angie. wei@gov. ca. gov" < angie. wei@gov. ca. gov>, marcella. bertolino@gov. ca. gov" < marcella. bertolino@gov. ca. gov>, " patrick. wright@gov. ca. gov" patrick. wright@gov. ca. gov>, " Priscilla. cheng@gov. ca. gov" < Priscilla. cheng@gov. ca. gov>, " oanna. sledge@gov. ca. gov" joanna. sledge@gov. ca. gov>, " vanessa. mercado@gov. ca. gov" < vanessa. mercado@gov. ca. gov>, nisha. dharmaraj@gov. ca. go" < nisha. dharmaraj@gov. ca. go>, " andrea. escobar@gov. ca. gov" andrea. escobar@gov. ca. gov>, " ian. ordonez@gov. ca. gov" < ian. ordonez@gov. ca. gov>, " michael. park@gov. ca. gov" 8 michael. park@gov. ca. gov>, " raguel. ramirez@gov. ca. gov" < raguel. ramirez@gov. ca. gov>,

1. usaaz. community@usdoi. gov" < usaaz. community@usdoi. gov>, " USAAZ. Public. Affairs@usdoi. gov" USAAZ. Public. Affairs@usdoi. gov>, " txspublicinquiry@usdoi. gov" < txspublicinquiry@usdoi. gov>, USAWNW. PublicAffairs@usdo0 gov" < USAWNW. PublicAffairs@usdoi. gov>, " USAOR. public. information@usdoi. gov" USAOR. public. information@usdoi. gov>, " AttorneyGeneral@doi. oregon. gov" < AttorneyGeneral@doi. oregon. gov>, USANV. CivilRights@usdoi. gov" < USANV. CivilRights@usdoi. gov>, " aginquiries@ag. nv. gov" < aginquiries@ag. nv. gov>, usanm. usattorney@usdoi. gov" < usanm. usattorney@usdoi. gov>, " USAOKE. CiviIMB@usdoi. gov" USAOKE. CiviIMB@usdoi. gov>, " USAOKE. CriminalMB@usdoi. gov" < USAOKE. CriminalMB@usdoi. gov>,

1. ago. info. help@nebraska. gov" < ago. info. help@nebraska. gov>, " USACO. PublicAffairs@usdoi. gov" USACO. PublicAffairs@usdoi. gov>, " usaco. civilrights@usdoi. gov" < usaco. civilrights@usdoi. gov>, " usao. md@usdoi. gov" usao. md@usdoi. gov>, " USAPAE. USAttorney@usdoi. gov" < USAPAE. USAttorney@usdoi. gov>, " USAO- EDPA@usdoi. gov" USAO- EDPA@usdoi. gov>, " veronica. hill@usdoi. gov" < veronica. hill@usdoi. gov>, — stein@ncdoi. gov" jstein@ncdoi. gov>, " ndag@nd. gov" < ndag@nd. gov>, " lori. conroy@usdoi. gov" < lori. conroy@usdoi. gov>,

1. usasd. information@usdoi. gov" < usasd. information@usdoi. gov>, " USAO- EDMO@usdoi. gov" < USAO- EDMO@usdoj. gov>, " USAMOW. webmaster@usdoi. gov" < USAMOW. webmaster@usdoi. gov>, usawi. public. information@usdoi. gov" < usawi. public. information@usdoi. gov>, " miag@michigan. gov" miag@michigan. gov>, " USANYS. CivilDivision@usdoi. gov" < USANYS. CivilDivision@usdoi. gov>, USANYS. CriminalDivision@usdoi. gov" < USANYS. Cri mina lDivision@usdoi. gov>, " Ryan. Weldon@usdoi. gov" Ryan. Weldon@usdoi. gov>, " contactdoi@mt. gov" < contactdoi@mt. gov>, " mardi. al- samarai@usdoi. gov" < mardi. al- samarai@usdoi. gov>, " usao. malo@usdoi. gov" < usao. malo@usdoi. gov>, " Tonja. Benninger@usdoi. gov" Tonja. Benninger@usdoi. gov>, " usavae. usattys@usdoi. gov" < usavae. usattys@usdoi. gov>, " ago. info@vermont. gov" ago. info@vermont. gov>, " USALAM. Civil- Rights@usdoi. gov" < USALAM. Civil- Rights@usdoi. gov>,

1. attorney. general@delaware. gov" < attorney. general@delaware. gov>, " USAHI. PublicAffairs@usdo0 gov" USAHI. PublicAffairs@usdoi. gov>, " oag@arkansasag. gov"< oag@arkansasag. gov>, " Jennifer. Gonzalez3@usdoi. gov" Jennifer. Gonzalez3@usdoi. gov>, " us. marshals@usdoi. gov" < us. marshals@usdoi. gov>, " usacac. cv- civilrights@usdoi. gov" < usacac. cv- civiIrights@usdoi. gov>, " USACAC. Citizen. Complaints@usdoi. gov" USACAC. Citizen. Complaints@usdoi. gov>, " Criminal. Division@usdoi. gov" < Criminal. Division@usdoi. gov>, Civil. Division@usdoi. gov" < Civil. Division@usdoi. gov>, " oig. hotline@usdoi. gov" < oig. hotline@usdoi. gov>,

1. ciaran. mcevoy@usdoi. gov" < ciaran. mcevoy@usdoi. gov>, " christina. shay@usdoi. gov" < christina. shay@usdoi. gov>, Zabrina. allen@usdoi. gov" < Zabrina. allen@usdoi. gov>, " Nitza. williamson@usdoi. gov"< Nitza. williamson@usdoi. gov>, CARE@doi. ca. gov" < CARE@doi. ca. gov>, " EERROffice@doi. ca. gov" < EERROffice@doi. ca. gov>, AttorneyGeneral. Appointments@doi. ca. gov"< AttorneyGeneral. Appointments@doi. ca. gov>, Karim. Kentfield@doi. ca. gov" < Karim. Kentfield@doi. ca. gov> Good Afternoon Mr. Davis,
Kindly do not continue to ignore my emails. I respectfully request that your agency take appropriate and timely action regarding my complaint. I continue to suffer at the hands of these individuals in the wake of the continued inaction on this matter.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Harkiran S. Kahlon
Good Afternoon Mr. Davis,
9 I have been attempting to obtain a response from your office for the past eleven months. During this time, I have consistently sent emails— approximately twice a week— all of which have gone unanswered. It is evident that my communications are being received, and you are fully aware of my situation; however, no acknowledgment or action has been taken.

As I have repeatedly explained in my prior correspondence, I have been forced into extremely difficult circumstances due to the actions of certain individuals associated with a government agency. These individuals have allegedly acted at the behest of my former employer, a private business owner, and have targeted me over the past four years in an effort to prevent me from pursuing legal action against them and their client.

As a direct result of these actions, I have lost my employment, housing, and access to healthcare. My life has been severely disrupted, and I continue to endure significant hardship due to this ongoing situation.

The continued delay in acknowledging my complaint and taking appropriate action is causing me to suffer enormously. I am not requesting any special favor; my complaint falls within your jurisdiction, and I respectfully expect it to be addressed accordingly.

I kindly urge you to respond to this matter without any further delay and to take the necessary action regarding my complaint.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Harkiran S. Kahlon
Good Morning Mr. Davis,
The continued delay in response from the Los Angeles office is severely impacting my life. Despite receiving no response from the FBI Los Angeles office, I continue to request acknowledgment and appropriate action regarding my complaint.

The complaint I submitted to your agency involves individuals associated with a government agency who abused their official authority and misused government resources to target me in a malicious and sustained manner. Their actions have persisted over an extended period and continue without legal repercussions. Their objective has been to intimidate and pressure me into abandoning my pursuit of legal redress, thereby allowing them, their accomplices, and my former employer— who enlisted their assistance— to evade accountability for their unlawful conduct and the severe harm inflicted upon my life.

The continued delay and inaction in this matter are only emboldening these individuals to persist in such behavior and further advance their interests.

I sincerely request that you acknowledge my complaint and initiate appropriate action against the individuals involved without any further delay.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Harkiran S. Kahlon
Kindly reply.... Because of continued delay in receiving a response from the FBI Los Angeles office— and their lack of action regarding the complaint I submitted— I am continuing to suffer. 10 I will never be able to reclaim the time I have lost. My life has been irreparably damaged by criminal elements within the system. I respectfully request that you take immediate action.

I am writing to follow up once again, as I have still not received any response from the FBI Los Angeles Field Office.

I have been consistently keeping your office informed of my situation since last year. After contacting multiple agencies regarding this matter, I became convinced that without formally bringing this situation to the attention of broader law enforcement authorities, it would never be addressed. I have made this clear in my previous communications.

As stated repeatedly, this matter involves the abusive, biased, and unlawful conduct of several law enforcement officials who acted at the behest of my former employer, a private business owner. These individuals misused their official authority to subject me to an inhumane situation that has now continued for more than four years. It is evident that those involved have no interest in allowing this matter to be investigated, as doing so would expose how official authority was improperly used to protect a private individual from accountability while targeting me through intimidation, abuse, and threats.

As a result of these actions, my life has been completely disrupted and irreparably harmed, despite the fact that I did nothing to warrant such treatment. To date, no agency has taken any meaningful action on my complaint.

I am therefore once again formally requesting that the FBI Los Angeles Field Office accept my complaint and initiate an investigation. This case involves coordinated, abusive conduct by multiple law enforcement officials who acted unlawfully to threaten me and to prevent me from pursuing legal action against my former employer. Four years of my life have been taken from me as a direct result of these actions, which were carried out to benefit my former employer and his associates.

At this point, I have no remaining option other than to seek investigation through the FBI.

While I am able to restate the entire sequence of events, I believe this would be redundant, as I have already provided detailed accounts and documentation through numerous emails over the past year. I will therefore conclude by respectfully requesting that the FBI investigate this matter and provide me with the necessary information regarding the individuals listed below— who are responsible for my situation, so that I may proceed with obtaining restraining orders against them —

1. My former employer and associates:

Pankaj Patel and Kalpana Patel, along with their younger daughter and her husband Property owners at SPKHospitality LLC and DSM Hospitality LLC.

Raj Patel and his cousin sister, Rani Vrutti Patel - Resident- Inn managers. They are related to husband & wife who manage the motel " El Cortez", located on Sepulveda Blvd in Van Nuys, CA.

Janak C. Patel - My replacement at DSM Hospitality LLC and Related to Raj Patel and Rani Vrutti Patel
Gunjan( My replacement at SPKHospitality LLC) and his companion, Minal Patel.

2. Government- affiliated individual:

A Caucasian male who pursued me on January 21, 2023, inside Encino Town Center, Encino, CA, operating a red Porsche SUVaccompanied by an African American male 11 inside a gold- colored Lexus SUVand were attempting to fabricate charges against me. This person appeared to be in charge of this campaign against me. Though there were several other individuals affiliated with a government agency are involved whose details and description is included in the complaint draft.

3. Iranian group and affiliates:

An Iranian group operative, his wife, two sons, and a daughter, all of whom have been complicit in a coordinated campaign against me.

An Iranian female identifying herself as Melody and her husband, who appeared to be close associates of Iranian group operative and have aided and abetted in these actions.

Additionally, my complaint draft identifies numerous other individuals who were engaged by the aforementioned three entities in furtherance of their unlawful conduct. I provided details about three entities in the complaint draft.

Thank you for your time and attention. I respectfully request acknowledgment of this email and guidance on the next steps.

Sincerely,
Harkiran S Kahlon
Forwarded message----------
From: Harkiran Kahlon < harry. kahlon7@gmail. com>
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2026
Subject: Fwd: Attention- OIG DOJ, Mr. Akil Davis— Submission of Complaint with Criminal Section of Civil Rights Division To: " akil. davis@ic. fbi. gov" < akil. davis@ic. fbi. gov>, " amir. ehsaei@ic. fbi. gov" < amir. ehsaei@ic. fbi. gov>, patrick. grandy@ic. fbi. gov" < patrick. grandy@ic. fbi. gov>, " raiiv. maan@ic. fbi. gov" < raiiv. maan@ic. fbi. gov>, rhys. williams@ic. fbi. gov" < rhys. williams@ic. fbi. gov>, " robert. molvar@ic. fbi. gov" < robert. molvar@ic. fbi. gov> Cc: Gavin. newsom@gov. ca. gov" < Gavin. newsom@gov. ca. gov>, " governor@governor. ca. gov" governor@governor. ca. gov>, " ann. oleary@gov. ca. gov" < ann. olearv@gov. ca. gov>, " ann. matosantos@gov. ca. gov" ann. matosantos@gov. ca. gov>, " ben. chida@gov. ca. gov" < ben. chida@gov. ca. gov>, " richard. figueroa@gov. ca. gov" richard. figueroa@gov. ca. gov>, " catherine. baxter@gov. ca. gov" < catherine. baxter@gov. ca. gov>, rheys. williams@gov. ca. gov" < rheys. williams@gov. ca. gov>, " angie. wei@gov. ca. gov" < angie. wei@gov. ca. gov>, marcella. bertolino@gov. ca. gov" < marcella. bertolino@gov. ca. gov>, " patrick. wright@gov. ca. gov" patrick. wright@gov. ca. gov>, " Priscilla. cheng@gov. ca. gov" < Priscilla. cheng@gov. ca. gov>, " ioanna. sledge@gov. ca. gov" joanna. sledge@gov. ca. gov>, " vanessa. mercado@gov. ca. gov" < vanessa. mercado@gov. ca. gov>, nisha. dharmaraj@gov. ca. go" < nisha. dharmaraj@gov. ca. go>, " andrea. escobar@gov. ca. gov" andrea. escobar@gov. ca. gov>, " ian. ordonez@gov. ca. gov" < ian. ordonez@gov. ca. gov>, " michael. park@gov. ca. gov" michael. park@gov. ca. gov>, " raguel. ramirez@gov. ca. gov" < raquel. ramirez@gov. ca. gov>, usaaz. community@usdoi. gov" < usaaz. community@usdoi. gov>, " USAAZ. Public. Affairs@usdoi. gov" 12 13
Becerra, Alexis
From: G. S. California Towing < office@gscaliforniatowing. com> Sent: Friday, August 7, 2026 7:12 PM
To: Amezcua, Valerie; Nunez, Alvaro; sonia. carvalho@bbklaw. com; Morfin, Abel; eComment; Diaz, Ricardo
Cc: eComment
Subject: Request for Review— RFP No. 26- 057 Police Rotational Towing & Storage Services Attention: This emailoriginatedfrom outsideof City of SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsor links.

Dear Mayor Amezcua, City Manager, City Attorney, Chief of Police, and Purchasing Department:

I am writing on behalf of G.S. California Towing, Inc. regarding RFPNo. 26-057 for Police Rotational Towing & Storage Services.

G.S. California Towing participated in the competitive RFPprocess and was one of the four companies recommended by City staff. However, when the item came before the City Council, it was pulled, and a Councilmember requested that a fifth towing company be added, referencing that it was a Santa Ana and family owned business. The Council then voted to include that company even though it was not part of the staff recommendation.

I am requesting clarification and review of the following concerns:

Addition of a fifth towing company. The RFPstates that proposals would be scored and ranked by a review committee and that qualified proposers would be recommended for award. Why was this company not originally recommended by staff, and what provision allowed it to be added by the City Council? Required trucks, equipment, and CHP inspections. The RFPspecifically requires each contractor to possess, maintain, and be the listed registered owner of at least four Class A trucks and one each of Class B, C, and D.

The RFP also requires these tow trucks to meet the requirements of the most current version of CHP 234B— Tow Truck Inspection Guide. All tow trucks are required to be inspected annually by the California Highway Patrol and maintain a current Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance ( CVSA) decal. The RFPfurther requires contractors to provide current copies of CHP 234B and CHP407F inspection documentation for each vehicle to the City' s Project Manager or designee.

It is my understanding that the City did not physically inspect the trucks or yards before recommending the companies for award. Please explain how the City verified that every awarded company possessed and was the listed registered owner of the required vehicles and that those vehicles had current CHP inspection documentation and complied with CHP 234B requirements.

Please also provide the vehicle lists and current CHP 234B and CHP 407F documentation submitted by each awarded company for the specific Class A, B, C, and D tow trucks used to satisfy the minimum requirements of RFP No. 26- 057.
i
MetroPro facility. MetroPro' s RFPdocumentation identifies a facility in Costa Mesa, yet during the Council discussion the Chief of Police stated that MetroPro has a yard in Santa Ana. Please identify the exact MetroPro facility that was submitted, evaluated, and approved under this RFP. If the Costa Mesa facility was evaluated, please explain why the Santa Ana facility was referenced during the Council discussion. If the Santa Ana facility was considered in determining MetroPro' s qualifications, please identify where that facility was included in MetroPro' s proposal.

Communications during the RFP. The RFPstates that proposers were only to communicate with the assigned Buyer regarding the RFPfrom the date it was issued until the contract was awarded. Please provide any communications between bidders or their representatives and Councilmembers, Council staff, SAPID personnel, or other City staff concerning this RFPoutside the designated procurement process.

G.S. California Towing followed the City' s competitive process and invested in the equipment, facilities, personnel, and compliance necessary to meet the RFPrequirements. We expect those same requirements to be verified and applied equally to every company receiving an award.

I request a written response addressing these concerns and ask that all records, communications, evaluations, vehicle ownership documentation, equipment records, CHP 234B and CHP407F inspection records, and other materials relating to this procurement and award be preserved.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

Respectfully,
Mayra Ruiz
President
G. S. California Towing, Inc.
2202 W 5th St.

Santa Ana, Ca 92703
714- 558- 7645 Office
714- 604- 3339 Cell
Www. GSCaliforniaTowing. com
0 2
Becerra, Alexis
From: JamalWalker <
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 6:24 AM
To: eComment; Amezcua, Valerie; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Jessie. lopez@santa- ana.org; Pbacerrra@santa- ana.org; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David Subject: ADA Accessibility request for SantaAna CA Macy's Corporate Services Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Hello City Council,
I would like to request a a review of a disability- related accommodation or report ADA accessibility issues in the City of Whittier at Rose Hills Mortuary to approve all pending transactions authorizations purchases signatures and donations made by Jamal Walker social security number for his biological dad and Dialysis Patient/ Prostate cancer patient Cornelius Walker Jr born who has never worked for Macy' s and doesn' t have access to approve all pending authorizations required. Imelda Ponciano Macy' s Santa Ana CA Employee Relations Division employee telephone number 562- 544- 7091 submitted an ADA request to approve all pending transactions authorizations purchases signatures and donations made by Jamal Walker social security number at Rose Hills Memorial Park and Mortuary with a telephone number of 562- 699- 0921. Please call her and find out what is going on, and why hasn' t she completed the approval. She said to have Spanish Speaking Catholic LAITY speak with her only which I requested already and her professional work desk isn't Spanish Speaking only. I don' t know why she wants to involve people outside of Macy' s.
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Ashley Dean <
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2026 12:48 AM
To: Amezcua, Valerie; Nunez, Alvaro; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David
Cc: Watkins, Mishaun; !City Clerk; eComment
Subject: URGENT CITYWIDE SANTA ANA COORDINATION REQUEST— Homelessness, Housing Behavioral Health
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Mayor Amezcua, City Manager Nunez, City Councilmembers, and Santa Ana leadership, I am requesting citywide coordination regarding my ongoing homelessness, housing instability, and unresolved behavioral- health access. I have already reached out through multiple systems, but I still need a named City contact who will help coordinate across homelessness services, housing resources, and the appropriate behavioral- health partners rather than simply redirecting me from one office to another.

I am also vision impaired, which makes fragmented online systems and repeated handoffs especially difficult. I am requesting reasonable, accessible communication and a direct point of contact by phone or email.

Please provide:

1. A named City staff person who will take ownership of coordinating this matter;

2. Any current Santa Ana shelter, interim- housing, supportive- housing, affordable- housing, or rapid- rehousing pathways for which I may be screened;

3. Direct coordination with the City' s homelessness/ housing staff and the appropriate County behavioral- health team where needed;

4. Confirmation of any City- funded or City- contracted program that can provide immediate housing navigation or placement assistance; and

5. A written response identifying the next concrete action, not merely another general referral.

This is time- sensitive. Please route this to the appropriate housing, homelessness, accessibility, and executive staff and respond with the responsible contact and next step.

Thank you,
Ashley Dorsey
t
Becerra, Alexis
From: Nikolai Tiritilli <
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2026 9:35 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Santa Ana PD!
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links. 191,
6: Cops name and badge# log/ contacts!
here' s are the name and badge# s of the cops that won' t help me and I had to do complaints about many times due to them not helping me! They don' t read any of my complaints because If they never email me there response. I let you know that I don' t want to get a paper in the mail because of me moving and to stop mailing me and they won' t listen to me!
i
Cops Names and Badge #
badge M 3950
name: corprol garcia
date and time: 9/ 8/ 26, 4pm
Name: Lopez
badge M 3296
date/ time: 25, 12: 15am
email: Jhamhlin@santa- ana. org
Name: Jcorreal
Badge M 3177
date and time: 9/ 27/ 25, 9: 30pm
Superior?: yes
Email: Jcorreal( a) Santa- Ana. org
Santa Ana or Orange: Santa ana
Name: Nolen
Badge #: 3583
Date/ time: 13/ 25, 6: 12pm
Supervisor: yes or no: yes
complain about: yes
email: MNolen( a) santa- ana. org
2X complaints about nolan)
Name: Robert Rodriguez
Badge M
Date/ time:

Supervisor: yes or no
email:

Name: Rolen
Badge #: 3514
Date/ time: 17/25 Wednesday 1:45
Supervisor: yes or no: No
Name: Reedy
Badge M 3346
Date/ time: 10: 56pm, 9/ 24/ 25
superviser: yes or no: yes
Name: Coral
Badge M 3334
Date/ time: 9/ 27/ 25, 7: 32
superviser, yes or no: yes
email:

Name: Jorge Lopez
Badge M 3029
Date and time:
superior: Commander
email:

Name: Ayala
Badge M 3294
Date/ time: 12/ 3/ 25, 6pm
SGT: yes
Name: AIALA
Badge M 3294
Date/ time: 4/ 16, 4: 28pm
Name: Biebrich
Badge M 3570
Date/ time: 4/ 16, 4: 28pm
Name: NGuyen
Badge#: 3151
date/ time: 05/ 5/ 26, N/ A
Name: Bonilla
Badge M 2307
Watch Commander
Date/ time: 4: 22pm, 5/ 26/ 26
Name: Prieto
Badge M # 3483
date/ time: 30, 1: 40am
Name: Salo
Badge #: 2896
date/ time: 30, 1: 40am
name: area
badge # 3531
date/ time: 7: 20, 8: 30/ 26
Email:
badge M 3950
name: corprol garcia
date and time: 9/ 8/ 26, 4pm
Name: G, mendez
car: 1697716
badge#: 3910
date/ time: 8/ 31/ 26, 8: 30am
case#: 2026- 18545
sexual assault infront of the bus by a mentally unstable mom) Request # 26- 2449 date: 9/ 1/ 26
Police reports and associated audio and video are not subject to public release pursuant to Government Code 7923. 600( a). As the requestor, if you believe you are entitled to a report because you are named in the report as a victim or as an involved party ( authorized representatives must obtain a signed waiver) you may submit a request via the NextRequest portal ( link below).

Records division:

District Attorney Contact:

OC DAP RASubmissions( a)- ocdistrictattorney. gov
300 North Flower Street
Santa Ana, CA 92703
714) 834- 3600
Case M ( 2026- 18545): Police reports and associated audio and video are not subject to public release pursuant to
Government: ( Code 7923. 600( a). As the requestor, if you believe you are entitled to a report because you are named in the report as a victim or as an involved party authorized representatives must obtain a signed waiver) you may submit a request via the NextRequest portal
Google: California Government Code ( Section 7923. 600) is a legal exemption under the law that allows law enforcement and California Public Records Act the state agencies to withhold police reports, investigatory files, and security records from the general public.

If a police department or government agency cited this number in response to a records request, it means they are denying the request to release an active or closed investigative file, complaint record, or police technique.

What the Law Means
Exemption from Disclosure: The law states that agencies do not have to release records related to complaints, ongoing investigations, intelligence, or security procedures.

Who it Applies To: It covers local police departments, county sheriffs offices, the California Department of Justice, and other state agencies doing correctional or licensing work.

Exceptions: Certain basic information ( like the time, date, and general location of a crime) or specific access for victims or involved parties may still apply under adjacent sections ( like Section 7923. 605).

Would you like help figuring out if you qualify as an involved party or victim to request a portion of the report, or do you need assistance drafting a follow- up letter to the agency?
Name: Guicry,
Badge: # 3908
Date and time: 8/ 31/ 26, 9: 32pm .

Refuse to help me email about a non call back about the cops of G Mendez and asking for his email
Watch commanders
Maria lopez
Badge M 3174
Name: CPL Roelofs
badge M 3514
date/ time:
email: Groelofs0- santa- Ana. ora
Name: Sharp
badge M 3327
supervisor: yes
date/ time: 2: 19pm, 12/ 16/ 25
Name: Bonilla
Badge M 2307
Watch Commander
Date/ time: 4: 22pm, 5/ 26/ 26
Name: Achciger
Badge number: 2978
date/ time: 6- 14- 26, 10: 19pm
The Santa Ana Police Department ( SAPD) encourages residents with questions or complaints regarding officer conduct to contact the Internal Affairs Division directly.

Internal Affairs Division
Phone: 714) 245- 8011
Purpose: To file a personnel complaint or inquire about an ongoing investigation.

Email: Internal Affairs Contact Page
Police Oversight Commission
The City of Santa Ana also maintains an independent Police Oversight Commission to provide civilian oversight.

Website/ Complaint Form: Police Oversight Commission
City Clerk' s Office: ( 714) 647- 5200 ( For assistance with submitting complaints to the commission)
Meetings: Second Thursday of every month at 5 p.m. at City Hall ( 22 Civic Center Plaza).

Other Relevant Numbers
Office Location: 60 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Lobby hours Monday- Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m
The Santa Ana Police Department ( SAPD) Internal Affairs Division and the Police Oversight Commission primarily utilize online forms, phone lines, and physical mail for complaints rather than a direct, public- facing email address.

Internal Affairs Division ( SAPD)
Phone: ( 714) 245- 8011
Mail: Santa Ana Police Department — M97, Internal Affairs Division, P. O. Box 1981, Santa Ana, CA 92702
Website: You can initiate a complaint through their official File a Complaint page, which provides a downloadable form.

Police Oversight Commission
Online Complaint Form: Complaints can be submitted electronically through the Police Oversight Commission complaint form.

City Clerk Contact: For questions, you can contact the City Clerk' s Office at 714) 647- 6520 or email: cityclerW- santa- ana. org.

General Contact
General SAPD Form: The department provides a general contact form for inquiries.

Non- Emergency Dispatch: ( 714) 245- 8049.

If you are filing a complaint, the department advises that you may fill out the form and submit it via mail or in person.

Becerra, Alexis
From: Josh Jordan <josh@superherosoft. com>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 5:31 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: The January 1 Flock mandate and Santa Ana' s oversight posture Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Mayor and Council,
On August 13, Flock Safety's CEOannounced that by January 1 every law enforcement customer must run its audit tool, with mandatory case codes (emergency bypass auto- flagged) and a 7-day default retention.

Coverage: https:// www.cnn.com/ 2026/08/ 13/tech/ flock- cameras-police- auditing- controls) As residents and council members start asking who watches police use of this data, it helps to have a clear answer ready. CrossCheck is an independent, agency-owned audit layer, with an optional public transparency dashboard that lets a city show its community the oversight is real. 15 minutes maps where Santa Ana stands against the January 1 landscape:
https:// superherosoft. com/ r/ Y2lOeWNsZXJrQHNhbnRhLWFuYS5vcmd8L2Nyb3NzY2hlY2svY2E. NB7T603ph GOmRt7rpWUuu3OO
One more thing, so it' s not a surprise: I'm reaching out to Santa Ana Police Department' s leadership about CrossCheck as well.

Josh Jordan
superhero Software Development
Independent oversight software for law enforcement
https:// superherosoft. com/ contact/
Every agency deserves a hero behind the scenes: we build technology services, applications, and websites for law enforcement and other municipal bodies.

Not affiliated with or endorsed by Flock Safety, Inc.
75 George St, Green Island, NY 12183
Don' t want these emails? Reply" unsubscribe" or click:
https:// superherosoft. com/ u/ Y2lOeWNsZXJrQHNhbnRhLWFuYS5vcmc. aGecfKOiOodNyDZzBk9blApM 1 Becerra, Alexis
From: JackieAngel Investor <
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 9:49 AM
To: Lopez, Jessie; eComment
Subject: Santiago Park Customers
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Jessie Lopez,
I tried calling your office, but no one answers. LOL
Santiago Park needs servicing, your customers are waiting for you. Sunday morning there was a man at the park masturbating in plain view of the children at the playground; he was having a hard time getting it to work though. Also, prostitutes and drugged out zombies and their customers looking for sexual favors, no one should have to see this in our parks, or on Main Street.

Please do your job and handle the services that you advertise on your sign out front. We are tired of doing your job.

Also, please pick up all the dirty condoms and the wrappers all over the park and trails while you are there.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Santa Ana
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Nikolai Tiritilli <
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 7:49 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Santa ana PD complaint and the policy they are not following! Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

I am respectfully requesting a face- to- face meeting with you to discuss my concerns regarding the handling of my request for police assistance by members of the Santa Ana Police Department.

I believe the circumstances surrounding my incident warrant your personal review. Based on my understanding of the department' s policies, I request that my complaint be reviewed under the following:

Policy
1010— Personnel Complaints
Policy
340— Standards of Conduct
Policy
321 — Conduct
Policy
320— Department Values
I am concerned that these policies may have been violated when officers failed to respond appropriately to my request for assistance. I would appreciate the opportunity to explain the details directly to you and provide any supporting information during our meeting.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to speaking with you and scheduling a meeting at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,
1 Your Full Name]
Your Phone Number]
Your Email Address]
2 Becerra, Alexis
From: Nikolai Tiritilli <
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 8:26 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Request for a City Email Address for Complaints Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Santa Ana City Council,
I am writing to request that the City of Santa Ana establish a dedicated email address where residents can submit complaints, concerns, and requests for assistance.

Having a clear and accessible email address would make it easier for residents to document their concerns, receive confirmation that their complaints were received, and communicate with the appropriate city department. It would also provide a reliable written record of complaints and responses.

I believe this would improve transparency, accountability, and communication between the City and its residents.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,
Nikolai
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Eric Craig <
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 11:30 AM
To: City Clerk; Parksandrecreation; Carvalho, Sonia R.

Subject: More Statements of Kaleo Deceit
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

City of Santa Ana ( Please forward to full city council):

Here are some more statements regarding Kaleo Marketing and how they do business. We have many more. If you wish to see them please let us know.

E. C.

Hello yes I was affected by this
Can I please obtain the email for dodgers lawyer?
Adela A
ph
Hello there,
At the dodger game of 9/ 21/ 25 we were stopped by the timeshare people and they pitched the interaction to my husband and I that if we put our seat number in we' d be win a prize. We did so and the prize that we won we had to attend the timeshare presentation. Additionally we' d won the " travel vouchers". We even did the timeshare presentation to receive the travel voucher and to this day no one has gotten back to us about the travel voucher we mailed in on 10/ 6/ 25 following the presentation we went to. Also they were very pushy at the timeshare presentation.
1 Taylor M
Hello,
Yes! I was a victim of this Scam. There were no tickets involved, but I was promised prizes which included Dodger merch and travel and dining vouchers. None of which was actually delivered. The travel and dining is a maze that included taxes, and all other types of things. Please include my name in any official complaints. Thank you.

Hubert M
To whom it may concern.

This is in regard to the timeshare people that we' re at your Dodgers games, soliciting free items. Both my wife and I attended a Dodger game on April 26, 2025. It was a 6: 10 pm game time. We arrived at the game a little early And a young man called us over to fill out a form to attend one of their talks about what they had to offer, In return, we would receive two dodger tickets, and a 3 day trip to several places. Of course, we had to answer questions and then they told us we had won the free items but needed to go to this place to pick them up. I want to say in Anaheim to collect our free gifts. I took the day off from work to attend this brief session, both my wife and I attended they spoke about their timeshare or I should say they didn' t call them timeshares. They said you would own a portion of this property. After a few hours we told them no we were not interested. They persisted and we once again said no thank you so after the third time of asking us. After this they did not treat us very nice. They asked us to go downstairs to receive our gifts. They gave us two pieces of paper one with a number to call for dodger tickets, and the other was a fill out portion in which they would notify us of our choice to visit, which was Las Vegas. We filled out all the paperwork that was requested mailed on 5/ 3/ 2025 for the Vegas trip and called for the tickets but never received anything. It was very disheartening since we trust our Dodgers and the Dodgers company that we would not be scammed this way. Please find attached the paperwork that was given to us, And hopefully we will hear from you soon with some kind of resolution. I really appreciate all your help. Any questions please feel free to contact me at Sincerely
Johnny S
Azusa, CA 91702
2 Hello, I' m interested but first of all how did you obtain my email and what are you hoping happens with the complaint?
Thank you.

M. Alan R, MPP
Los Angeles, CA
Good day,
Thank you for reaching out and offering information to combat scams. I did encounter this exact problem and did not realize it was a timeshare contract. I signed for a vacation wyndham program after they offered me hotel specials when trying to receive my " prize " I' d won at the expo. The details of the sale and fees were different than I understood and now they are refusing to cancel the Worldmark membership despite me trying to resolve for weeks and never using any booking.

Because of the way it was explained by the office representatives I thought it was a viable membership fee but it was presented as less than the true charges and I cannot manage it.

Do you possibly have any information on how to handle this when Wyndham refuses to process my cancellation request?
Thank you for your time,
Clarissa W.

Send details on how to file written complaint. Was promised a getaway and never received any follow up when block of dates was selected and submitted. No call back and not response when we call them. 3 Hello,
We were part of this marketing presentation and the information provided to us was misleading. We do not live in California so we were unable to attend a Dodgers game, but we did participate in the zoom presentation for the travel vouchers. We bought a travel voucher and had issues booking the trip with them so we never ended up going. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Thank you,
Makala R
Hello yes we were told to attend at a place " a presentation" he said we didn' t have to buy anything just attended the presentation to win tickets to a dodgers game, not knowing it was for timeshare, they were very persistent and on us to make a purchase but I put my foot down and said we just came for our free dodger tickets and they told us we had to get in contact with the person who sent us there, once in contact with Marcus he told us he wasn' t authorized to give us those tickets and he never responded again to our texts.

Alejandra H
Hello, yes I did get scammed by this group. They promised me a free cruise. I went to redeem it and I still had to pay 925. 77. Our friends wanted to book to go with us and they got a cheaper rate from Carnival without a " free cruise".

We paid more with the free cruise than if we would have booked it on our own.

Thanks,
Gabriel L
4 Yes I want to complain as well they lie to you about winning tickets and the voucher for a vacation is also false and also about the the 100$ for a food voucher is also a lie.

Mirian C
Thank you for reaching out. As it turns out, we were one of the many unlucky ones scammed by Wyndham and their partners. They first shorted us Dodger tickets, then made it impossible to redeem their travel vouchers. We have yet to redeem the food credit so it' s possible that' s a fail as well. We would be interested in receiving your Dodger contact' s email( s) and then vetting them before sharing our full documented experience directly with the organization.

Thanks again,
Dodger ( not Wyndham) fans
Gigi P
Hello,
Yes I was a VICTIM of this Company/ Venue project at Dodger Stadium last year. Spent 7 hrs listening to pitches and at 6 pm finally was given a voucher to games that had supposedly were ADA. I don' t think Dodger Stadium should allow this kind of marketing venue. Yes my partner was denied due to not qualifying but he provided his personal info too.

The Dodger Game Voucher given to us could not be used due to no seats available. Such a scam. Such violation. 5 I want to file a complaint too
Thanks,
Dora R
Hi.

I was given your info by John Sullivan and encouraged to write to you about something I supposedly" won" after filling out my information on computer screens at the Aug. 30 Dodgers game at Dodger Stadium. The rep claimed I won Dodgers tickets and a vacation in exchange for watching a time share presentation. I went to the Wyndham Timeshare presentation on Sept. 7 in Oceanside. I sent in the mailing to redeem my vacation and never heard anything back from them. I definitely felt like they wasted my time and scammed me. The free tickets they gave me were for a game during the week that I couldn' t attend anyway and they were horrible seats. So I gave the tickets away. I feel scammed and don' t like that they wasted my time. They definitely should not be allowed to do shady business at Dodger stadium. That was my first Dodgers game and it left a very bad taste in my mouth for ever going back.

Heidi H
The prizes they promised us were restaurant gift cards. But we received restaurant. Com vouchers to use on a website with limited use. Theyre more of a promotional discount than actual gift cards. The other prizes they promised us were hotel vacations stays that I had to mail in vouchers to see if we get any hotel stays. It had to be mailed out within a few days of their sales pitch meeting. We had no plans to take an abrupt vacation to use the vouchers. The details to the prizes were never disclosed until after we received them. It made us waste time listening to their sales pitch.

Juan A
6 My husband and I filled out the forms thru there computers. Last year as well as this year I was not made aware my credit was being run I was only told to fill out the information to see if I won something. Last year it said I had won and they set me up with a time share video call where a man was extremely rude and persistent trying to get us to be members of there club spending over 500 dollars. We thankfully declined but we' re still sent vouchers for some vacations that were supposed to be free, but you had to spend a bunch of money. We also have received extreme amount of spam calls that I wasn' t aware was related to them.

Tani L
Hello,
My name is Cynthia and I received your contact information from John Sullivan in regards to the Wyndham complaints. I too feel as if I have been scammed as I was told I won a vacation offer after filling out a " giveaway" on a computer at Dodger Stadium.

My experience with Wyndham is as follows:

June 19, 2025 - I attended a Dodgers game and was approached by an employee to enter the giveaway. I won and selected the 5 day beach stay and $ 200 dinning credit.

July 27. 2025 - I attended the mandatory sales presentation in Anaheim, California which was a 40 mile round trip drive from my home. The presentation was supposed to be from 11am- 12pm but the sales representatives kept pushing me to purchase a timeshare and after repeatedly expressing that I was not interested was finally able to leave at 12: 45pm. I received the $ 200 dinning credit and was told the information for the 5 day beach stay was to come.

After a few weeks I received the information via mail, filled out the paperwork and submitted my two separate dates as requested. To my surprise I was rejected and not given a reason why. I called a couple times to inquire but was not given any details. To add to my frustration and confusion I found out that I had to spend money in order to use the dinning credits which was never told or explained to me. 7 I do feel scammed by Wyndham and did not have a good experience with this company. I feel lied to and like I wasted my time and money.

I hope that the Dodgers take the right actions to compensate for Wyndham' s scam. I love the Dodgers but do not appreciate a company like Wyndam being allowed to do business like this and hope it does not continue.

If you require any additional information, please let me know.

Best,
Cynthia A
Hello,
Yes I did fill out my information for the Dodger tickets I " won". I have gotten relentless calls from someone saying I started a loan processing application, which I never have. I have received nearly, if not more, 50 calls a day. For months. It' s ridiculous. None of the vouchers they provided me with have ever worked. Except the Dodger tickets I did eventually get. When I reached out to customer service for them I' ve been on hold forever. Needless to say it' s been uncomfortable for a long time.

Thank you,
Nancy V
Hello,
This email seems like its own separate scam, so I will proceed with caution. But this did happen to me.

Can you please send me the information for the Dodgers' lawyers? 8 It' s exactly as you described, we were coerced into a timeshare presentation on the premise that we' d get free Dodgers tickets and a free 4- day vacation.

We went to the presentation the following Saturday ( and had to put down a $ 40 deposit on my credit card that they said we' d receive in cash upon arrival). I did receive the cash back. We were told this was a 2- hour commitment, but they trapped us there for almost 3 hours having the most mind numbing conversation over and over again. We got the Dodgers ticket voucher and vacation voucher from the front desk after. We were able to redeem the Dodgers voucher for seats, but they were $ 40 tickets that we didn' t get to use because we couldn' t choose the date and it was randomly on a Jewish holiday.

The vacation voucher ended up being a scam. We sent the completed voucher to the exact address on the voucher within the stipulated 40- days- after- receipt period, and months later, it appeared back in our mailbox marked returned to sender," and therefore was void.

There' s no phone number to call to get this fixed or addressed. It was a huge scam.

Would love to help others avoid this awful fate. What a waste of time and energy.

Best,
Emma F
Sabreena D
Wow! I am so glad you finally caught this! This company is a scam. They lie to people and many people fall pray to them. I was one of them! They promise so much and sell you a timeshare that you cannot use later because they make it so hard to use:(
Thank you so much!
Ingrid R
9 Success Coach <><
Advance Homeschool College Pre
Hi John,
My husband and I were definitely caught up in this scam and actually attended the presentation and now we can' t stop receiving scam calls on a daily basis.

Please provide us with the email to voice our complaints.

Thank you
Jocelyn M
Hello,
Yes I was victim of this and fell for their scheme I also went to their information session where I felt pressured to buy one of the timeshare packages.

Jacki S
Amy B
10 Hi.

Heidi H
Good afternoon, I' m still waiting for my four dodger tickets I was promised for attending the half- day seminar that was 62 miles one way from my house. Not only did I give my time but also my money for the tank of gas that it cost to drive out there and back.

Jay V
The prizes they promised us were restaurant gift cards. But we received restaurant. Com vouchers to use on a website with limited use. Theyre more of a promotional discount than actual gift cards. The other prizes they promised us were hotel vacations stays that I had to mail in vouchers to see if we get any hotel stays. It had to be mailed out within a few days of their sales pitch meeting. We had no plans to take an abrupt vacation to use the vouchers. The details to the prizes were never disclosed until after we received them. It made us waste time listening to their sales pitch.

Juan A
cell (
11 Taylor and Hannah
Had to threaten a class- action in order to get our " gifts".

Hi,
My husband and I were definitely caught up in this scam and actually attended the presentation and now we can' t stop receiving scam calls on a daily basis.

Please provide us with the email to voice our complaints.

Thank you
Jocelyn M
We were promised tickets to the game for attending the timeshare event and we never received them also they didn' t want to let us leave without signing up for their time share.

Sent from my iPhone
Alex P
12 Hello again,
Thank you for the information!
This is something I have been battling over the last few months and still remains unresolved. It has become extremely frustrating that I was deceived and that it tainted my experience from attending a Dodger game that specific day almost a year ago on July 21, 2025. I am glad to hear they are officially out of Dodger stadium and no longer have to fear being a victim of this kind of experience again.

I' d appreciate the list of events and memos you can provide.

Thank you for your time and help!
Maliah L
Is this still on going ? Because I had the exact thing happen to me . I had supposedly won 4 free nights in Cancun and was never able to obtain the voucher for my gift.

April C
Yes I was scammed. Paid 50. 00 and was continuously refused my hotel stays. I sure hope you can help; its not fair the way they promise people and then refuse to make good. they neve gave me a trip after I selelcted several times and paid $ 50. 00 I did their time share. I was promised a hotel stay and each time they denied my choices.

Doreen M
Hello John Sullivan,
13 Thank you for your response and for the work your group is doing. I appreciate you taking the time to review my experience, and I' m grateful that my complaint can contribute to broader efforts to address this issue.

I will forward my written complaint directly to the Dodger legal team at the email addresses you provided. I also understand your request to assist by sending my experience to the cities and event organizers you will be listing, and I am willing to help with that effort once the information is shared.

Regarding the possibility of a class- action lawsuit, I am open to learning more and will consider participating as a named plaintiff if appropriate. What my family experienced was deeply misleading and financially harmful, and I don' t want others to be subjected to the same practices.

Please keep me informed of next steps and upcoming communications. Thank you again for your advocacy and for including me in this effort.

Respectfully
Audrina G
Hello:

I am writing to formally report my experience with Kaleo Marketing/ Wyndham Resorts after being approached by their representatives at Dodger Stadium. I believe I was misled and taken advantage of, and I feel strongly that their presence at the stadium harms fans who trust that any organization operating on Dodger property is legitimate and vetted.

During a family visit to Dodger Stadium, my husband and I were told that we had won several travel- related prizes, including:
a trip to Hawaii,
two nights at a hotel in Palm Springs, and
a cruise.

We were assured these gifts were legitimate and easily redeemable. However, once we attempted to use them, we discovered that virtually none of the dates we were available for were accepted, and we were told we would have to pay substantial taxes and fees— often totaling $ 1, 000 or more— for what had been presented to us as free prizes. In the end, none of these " awards" were realistically attainable.

Believing these promises were real, my husband and I were persuaded into signing a two- year contract with Wyndham. We genuinely thought we were making a good investment for our children, an opportunity to travel and create experiences we did not have growing up as middle- class working parents. Over the course of the contract, we were only able to use the timeshare for short, local hotel stays a handful of times. While those short trips were enjoyable, they fell drastically short of what had been promised to us.

We feel deceived. The promises made to us, especially in the presence of our children, were misleading and ultimately false. As a long- time Dodger fan who traveled from San Diego and saved to bring my family of four to a game, it is extremely disappointing to learn that a company operating 14 inside Dodger Stadium was using deceptive tactics to target families like mine. The trust we placed in the Dodgers as an organization is the only reason we engaged with Wyndham representatives at all.

Because of my experience, I would like to file an official complaint against Wyndham and request that the Dodgers reconsider allowing them, or any affiliated marketing groups, to operate inside Dodger Stadium. Fans should be able to enjoy games without being subjected to deceptive sales presentations disguised as prize giveaways or " fan rewards." Please let me know the next steps or provide the appropriate contacts so that I may submit my full written complaint.

Thank you for your time and for taking the concerns of Dodger fans seriously.

Respectfully,
Audrina G
Hello,
I wanted to share my experience with that, they sure made them sound appealing when they promoted the tickets at the kiosks. They promoted two Dodger tickets , $ 100 dollar restaurant voucher and a stay at one of their hotels free.

After all that they made me go to a presentation for a timeshare and after I denied it all " my incentives" were 2 tickets all the way to the top end corner, a restaurant. com voucher that couldn' t be use without paying extra fees and a voucher to a hotel that supposedly gave you 2 nights , 3 days and had to pay extra fees before knowing and still needing to pay $ 25 for a " processing fee". Never again! I just wanted to share to inform of the scam they' re doing and how it resembles on the Dodger community .

Than you !
America G
Hello! Not sure if it' s late to write a complaint. But I was just noticing that I had a hard inquiry on my credit report for the Wyndham vacation presentation that we went to, they said they were not going to run my credit but I just noticed that they actually did. And, yes to redeem the nights there' s additional fees that you have to pay.

If you gave any questions please feel free to reach out to me.

Thank you
15 Jennifer Silva 714- 292- xxxx
Sent from my Phone
Hello,
My name is Madalin Thank you for this update. I would like to send in a written complaint. I attended a game and won" what was supposed to be tickets and a paid hotel stay. Can you provide me more information please? Thank you.

Best regards,
Madalin C
Greetings,
Wow, that' s terrible... I guess that' s why I didn' t get my rebait.

I guess I can get rid of all that I have since they are no longer valid. They did work in the past, and I actually did get several $ 100 rebate checks back.

Thank you very much for getting back to me... I was wondering why I never got my rebait. I should at least have received an email stating that they will not process my claim because it is not available anymore.

Regardless yes, I do want the promoters' emails, I have received a whole handful of those 3rd party 4d/ 3n certificates and those 7- day resort stays and all complete garbage, they collect deposits and never get anything from them.

Is anyone doing a class action lawsuit? I also have several friends who have been swindled by these 3rd party Vaca promotions and lost money. We would all love to join such a suite.

Have a beautiful day!
Janina
16 Hello
Yes I would be interested in making a complaint about this company.

Jessica M
Hello... I was scammed like many others with this event. I will now never stay at one of their hotels for the bullshit they put me through. I went to the sales meeting. I decided to not purchase. I sent my voucher in and they conventiebt lost it. I sent messages to help desk with no response at all. Please send me details of how to file a formal complaint. Was they offered was false marketing to an extreme.

Peg K
Hi,
I wanted to reach out to inform you of my experience with Wyndham at the LA Dodgers game. I was one of the people who was" selected" for a free 4 day trip voucher and $ 200 dinner vouchers upon running my credit and attending a time share presentation. I did as I was told to, we scheduled and attended a 4 1/ 2 hour timeshare presentation and after they ran my credit and I kindly declined their timeshare, they begrudgingly gave me the voucher. The dinner voucher directed me to claim my credits at restaurant. com. I attempted to use some of these credits at a restaurant listed on the site and was told they don' t know why their restaurant is listed there and that they don' t have any kind of connection with restaurant. com. I' m afraid to try again anywhere else... it was an embarrassing experience.

I also waited around after mailing in my vacation voucher as requested with no response. I contacted the help desk email and they sent the confirmation letter via email. I then followed up with our selected dates by mail and was told that it was past the window of expiration that they accept, and to read the fine print item # 8. I was told this voided the voucher but after stating I would escalate this issue I was given one more exception to fill it out again. This is where I' m at currently, but honestly I' m afraid to see what happens once I book this vacation and potentially come to find out we have no hotel and have to pay it all in full...

Please let me know your thoughts and if there is anything I can do to help ensure that this does not happen to anyone else. Not a good experience and very shady practices by Wyndham.. 17 Thanks!
Kindly,
Meirav H
Hi John,
I hope my correspondence is not late in order to receive the emails of the Dodger attorneys. The year- end and holidays were busy and exhausting.

After reviewing your email I' d like to communicate that my husband and I were approached at the Dodger Stadium to fill out personal information on the screen, and being on the premises of the Dodger Stadium, you just don' t think the Dodgers are not aware and supportive of their business practices with their fans, and that was shocking to learn.

My husband and I apparently did have an instant credit check ran, unbeknownst to us. With the fear of getting to your seats late and missing the opening ceremony, one does not take the time to read the fine print to understand what is being acknowledged, and you trust the representative there as we would trust the Dodger organization. We were approved for their free' items and my husband and I did attend one of the live sales sessions at a Wyndham hotel in Anaheim. The closing portion of their sales pitch was conducted in a room with so many people, loud overhead music, that I walked out of there with a headache and in dire need of some pain killers. Needless to say, we did not purchase a time share, however, we did sign up for the ' free trip'.

The ' free trip' has been a disappointment. We did pay the $ 50 taxes to begin the process, but didn' t get very far with the planning of the trip. The options presented were completely lackluster and did not meet expectations for the types of trips my husband and I are used to enjoying. I did communicate that to our travel representative, and even provided examples of properties we would consider for our trip, after having done some research on their properties. Of course, now you are limited to dates based on availability, and the ' free' trip was no longer free, as we would have to pay a premium for the properties that would meet our minimum expectations. After comparing the prices we would have to pay for the premium fee, I realized there was not really a savings going through them, and I was better off planning my own trip and save myself the frustration of emailing back and forth with potential options of properties that just were not meeting our expectations. I got frustrated, and just have not returned any phone calls back.

As far as the free Dodger tickets won, I was told by the representative the dates were flexible, and we would have options to select a date that worked with our schedule, as my husband is not able to attend a weekday game. Well, that was completely false and misleading. Upon getting the tickets downloaded to my MLB app after attending the sales session, the tickets were preselected for a September game during a weekday. I texted the representative immediately and asked him for dates for a weekend game, and he never got back to me. He told me he would forward my request to their' home office' for date options based on availability, and I he never got back to me. I texted him once or twice to hold him accountable and obtain those date options and he simply ghosted me. I did end up going to the game, however, not with my husband.
18 I am interested in connecting with the Dodger attorneys. I look forward to hearing from you in regards to contact with them.

Best regards,
Alicia M
Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, I am one of the individuals who fell victim to this scam.

I attended a Travel Show last year where I was approached by a man named Tezz ( 702- 596- 2241), who stated that he worked for World Mark by Wyndham. I signed up for a Wyndham presentation scheduled for February 15, 2025.

However, approximately one week prior to the presentation, Tezz contacted me and stated that Wyndham was fully booked. He then advised that he would connect me with one of Wyndham' s affiliated entities called " Serenity Time" Travel Club.

On March 2, 2025, I participated in a Zoom call with Miki Stocua. The conversation began professionally but quickly deteriorated when I expressed that I was not interested. At that point, the team became rude and extremely unprofessional.

Although they later sent a cruise certificate, I was required to pay a fee to " verify" the certificate. This entire experience was misleading and extremely disappointing. I never used the cruise certificate, and I would not recommend this group to anyone.

Attached are the email addresses of the individuals I interacted with.

Sincerely,
Yvette P
19 Becerra, Alexis
From: Eric Craig <
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 11:28 AM
To: City Clerk; Parksandrecreation; Carvalho, Sonia R.

Subject: Timeshare ( Kaleo Marketing) in Chicano Heritage Festival ( and other Santa Ana events)
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

City of Santa Ana ( Please forward to full city council):

Below you will find a copy of an email ( unedited and unredacted) which was sent years ago by the then Director of Operations of Kaleo Marketing which clearly depicts the type of trickery that their representatives are trained to engage in and the lies that they were/ are trained to tell customers when they are being booked for a presentation.

At the time this email was sent there was not an option for a zoom presentation ( which was invented during Covid to do at home sales previews). So when the people had their credit run and it did not meet Wyndam' s standards, they were instead switched to GEVC ( Global Exchange Vacation Club) which was another timeshare company that Kaleo did business with that did not have a credit score requirement. Therefore, if a person or couple were found to have sub par credit, they were booked or switched to a GEVC preview. In this email, the representatives are being instructed how to ask initial questions about the people' s credit and then how to properly call the Wyndham dispatch while they have people at the booth listening to their conversation) to check their credit to see if they should be sent to a Wyndam or GEVC presentation without the customer( s) realizing that this was being done. As you will read, Wyndam is the preferred booking because Kaleo is paid much more for sending people into those previews than they were for GEVC and now Serenity ( zoom) previews. So the goal was/ is to get people qualified into a Wyndam preview.

The memo trains the reps to first ask initial questions of the customers " forgive me for asking, you have decent credit?" and to " look the guests in the eye" and to " read body language" to not only listen for their verbal response, but to also judge the credibility of their response. They are told to " use their instincts" and send them directly to GEVC if in their judgement they are not credit worthy of a Wyndam preview. If they believe they may be credit worthy, they were trained to call into Wyndam dispatch to run a credit check on the people on the spot while they were standing at the booth. ( Now this calling in of the tours is not necessary when people fill out their information on a computer screen, like they did at Dodger Stadium, as the computer runs a credit check immediately as previously discussed). Here is where the reps are trained to engage in smoke and mirrors marketing and to directly lie to the customers.

The reps are told to get the DL ( driver' s license) of the person or couple and then call into Wyndham and to give the person/ people' s information over the phone to a Wyndham dispatch person who then input the information into their system for the sole purpose of running a credit check on them. Although, the reps are trained to hide this fact from the customer ( just as they were at Dodger Stadium). They are told to tell the customer that " I' m going to check availability" at the preview center when what they were really doing was to having a credit check( s) run on them. They are told to say outloud on the phone to the Wyndham operator that they were " Checking availability for ( guests name) in Anaheim ( or whatever sales center)" so that the customer( s) hears this and has no idea that their credit is being run. The Wyndham operators know that this means that the rep is calling in for a credit check. It would take a few minutes so the reps were trained to " multi- task" as the check was being run in order to look busy for the customer( s) waiting to keep the people from becoming impatient and leaving the booth before the credit check is completed. After the credit check is completed the customer( s) are determined to be " Q"/ qualified credit or " NQ"/ not qualified credit. If they are determined to be NQ, the reps were/ are trained by management/ ownership to tell more lies. They are told to tell the customer " I' m so glad I checked 1 availability, Wyndham is completely booked up now. . ." They were then trained to tell the customer, " but we represent another club called Global, they currently have availability. .

You will also see that it clearly states in the email that these " credit modeling" procedures were discussed with, and designed by, Michael Oberlander, the owner and CEO of Kaleo Marketing. It states clearly: " Michael and I have been working through the WVO/ SVC Credit Modeling over the past number of weeks, and have come up with procedure. . . " and that " The best time to credit model is when the tour is still at the table" This is just one of the various ways that Kaleo Marketing had engaged in trickery and deceptive marketing for years. Currently, the people who do not meet the credit qualifications for Wyndham are set up for Serenity ( zoom) previews but the procedure remains the same. If they do not pass the Wyndham credit check, the reps are trained to tell whatever untruth they need to as an excuse to switch them to the alternate preview. Kaleo reps obviously could not tell customers they were calling into Wyndham to check their credit as no one would allow that and people would be furious if they knew this was being done ( just as they would be furious if they knew the computers at events were doing this). And when their credit came up unworthy " NQ" they certainly could/ can not tell people that their credit was run and that it came up bad so they are not deemed worthy to attend a Wyndham presentation but they they have anoher sales presentation they can set them up for that allows people with less than stellar credit to attend. It would be a nightmare for the reps if people knew their credit was run without their permission ( either by the phone calls that use to be made or by the computers that were used at Dodger Stadium and currently elsewhere) and they certainly would not attend the alternate sales preview for Wyndham rejects. Just as Kaleo would not be able to operate at events and set up computer screens if the people who received red screens ( not qualified) were told that they did not " win" because they either did not meet Wyndam requirements or did not pass the credit check that was run by the computer on them. If the reps told the truth, Kaleo would lose out on a ton of income, thus the deception is a necessary business model to maximize profit, and most likely to stay afloat at all.

E. C.

Legend
Michael - Michael Oberlander ( owner and CEO of Kaleo Marketing) WVO - Wyndham
SVC - Shell Vacation Club ( part of Wyndham)
Q - Qualified ( Good Credit/ Wyndham Worthy)
NQ - Not Qualified Credit ( Not Wyndham Worthy)
U - Unqualified Credit ( same as NQ above)
DL - Driver' s License
20 - Refundable deposit that people put down to reserve their spot at a presentation ( currently it is usually $ 40)
Credit Model - How to call into Wyndham and check people' s credit without them knowing that is what is happening.

Email
OPC Team,
2 We are in the busy season.. now is the time to work and make money. The OC Fair is just a couple of weeks away and things will remain busy throughout the rest of the year. If you are not WVO trained and been down to Anaheim, please send me a text as we are going to have one more evening orientation in the next couple of weeks before the fair. We want everyone WVO trained before the fair!!
Michael and I have been working through the WVO/ SVC Credit Modeling over the past number of weeks, and have come up with procedure that takes the least amount of time when booking a tour.

The best time to credit model is when the tour is still at the table. Please read below....

1. Anyone over 75k should be pitched WVO. This goes without saying given the WVO name and the amazing product.

2. Always re- qualify off the lead slip and ask..." Forgive me for asking, you have decent credit?" Look the guests in the eye when you ask and listen for response. Read body language.

3. Use your instincts and pitch GEVC if you get any resistance or hesitation. Remember if they' ve had a bankruptcy or foreclosure they' re not able to tour anywhere.

4. When you close the tour, $ 20 on the table. This is the time to call in and credit model. You should immediately ask " Do you guys have ID on you." When they take out the ID, say " Please fill out your name, address and cell number for a reminder call, I' m going to check availability while you' re doing that." Immediately call the tour in, tell the operator that you are, " Checking availability for ( guests name) in Anaheim ( or whatever sales center)" Try to multi task while on the phone .. typically a minute or two.

5. Remember you are looking for a Q, if you get two U' s and the other DL has a different address ask the operator to put in the other address.

6. Once you get a Q, you' re done. You don' t have to book the tour at this time with the operator. Remember, if it' s for the current weekend you will have to manifest the tour and call it in later, but make sure you tell the operator they' re already modeled.

7. On the tour confirmation right above the names of the guests write a small Q or U and circle. Tell the guests they are good to go on whatever date!

8. If you get an NQ when calling in tell the guests " I' m so glad I checked availability, Wyndham is completely booked up now, but we represent another club called Global, they currently have availability and give their guests guaranteed RT airfare!!

9. Very important when inputting in Track .... in the notes section after the greeter code, write guests last name and Q/ U. Example ... K77 Rogers/ Q Nelson/ U Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Steve Roman
Director of OPC Operations
Kaleo Marketing, LLC
steve. roman@kaleomarketing. com
Cell:

Fax: 310- 997- 0397
8592 Venice Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90034
3 Becerra, Alexis
From: Eric Craig <
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 11:26 AM
To: City Clerk; Parksandrecreation; Carvalho, Sonia R.

Subject: Timeshare ( Kaleo Marketing) in Chicano Heritage Festival ( and other Santa Ana events)
Attachments: Track ResultsTraining.htm; Wyndham Loan Approval (after credit is secretly run)jpg; Not A Free Vacation. pdf, Dodgers ( Kaleo) ( 1).mp4; Dodgers Booth 2jpg; Dodgers Boothjpg
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Kaleo Marketing is currently under investigation by a city attorney' s office.

City of Santa Ana ( Please forward to full city council):

Unfortunately, you have a timeshare marketing company, Kaleo Marketing/ Wyndham Resorts, that continues to be allowed to book booths at your events including your Chicano Heritage Festival this past weekend. This is to inform you once again) of exactly how they operate so that your organization/ city can make an informed decision in regard to whether they are allowed to attend any more of your events in the future. A city attorney' s office has an active investigation now about their business practices. Word is getting out about how they operate and they are getting shut out of many events ( Dodger Stadium, San Diego Auto Show, San Diego County Fair, LA Auto Show and many others) and cities as a whole. The citizens and visitors to Santa Ana deserve better than to be subject to their business practices when they are simply attending your events to have fun with friends and family.

Read the details and investigate the attached documents and internal memo ( to be sent in a separate email) to determine if you want to expose the patrons of your events to this company and its tactics. The citizens and visitors to Riverside, and your event, deserve better when they are simply out to enjoy themselves. Kaleo will attempt to deny any unethical behavior and snooker you into letting them continue doing business with your organization/ city as they are well versed at deception, but as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.

First, as you might know, the computers and paper pads they use at events are utilized to capture people' s information. What Kaleo calls " greeters" are the people who are out working in front of the booths telling your customers to enter into a " drawing" or to spin a wheel to get prizes and they are usually told that the computer will let them know right after the survey is completed if they are " winners" when their computers are used ( usually on an inside booth) If they use the spin wheels they tell people to spin for " free" travel and other prizes. In actuality, there are no actual " winners" of anything . . . only the opportunity to be pitched on attending a timeshare presentation. It is all a ploy to build excitement and make people believe they can " win" instantly so that they can be enticed to enter the drawing and give up all their personal information. The information input ( age, marital status, household income, address) lets the representatives know if the people are eligible to attend a timeshare presentation so they can get paid on their attendance. ( scan attached QR code for entry form) ( The reps are not paid hourly or a salary. They are paid commission when someone attends the sales preview only.) What your organization/ city may not know is that the computers use the personal information to run people through a credit check unbeknownst to them. Your attendees unwittingly subject themselves to this as no one in their right mind would fill out the information on the screen and submit it knowing they were being run through one. Certainly, none of the greeters or representatives for Kaleo let people know this is what happens, though they all know. When someone is signed up after spinning a wheel or filling out a paper pad ( used at your city events), the person' s information is input later into a computer system that then runs a credit check after the fact. The credit check is necessary because Wyndham not only wants those people with certain ages ( 28 yrs and over) and minimum incomes ($ 75, 000 household annual incomes or above) who can afford to purchase a timeshare, but also they only want those with good credit to attend so that their timeshare purchases can be financed if they agree to buy. Kaleo does not get paid by Wyndham if they send in people who do not pass the credit check. The people who enter their information on the computers at events are only told it is to determine if they are eligible to get free stuff. Most of the time, the term " win" is used by the greeters and representatives alike. If all the information meets Wyndham 1 requirements ( age, income and others) and the computer determines they have good credit ( largely based on the address they enter), the computer turns a certain color ( blue) and gives them a " congratulations" and tells them to talk to a representative for a " special promotion" they are eligible to receive. Many of the representatives will actually high five people who get blue " congratulations" screens and show a high level of excitement for them as if they have actually won something when all that has really happened is that they have been determined eligible to attend a Wyndham timeshare presentation.

If they do not meet eligibility requirements, the computer turns red, and says " Thank you". The representatives are always on the lookout for the blue screens and immediately begin their pitches as they are paid strictly on a commission basis. They are paid for each person or couple that meets the requirements and attends a sales presentation. Each person that completes the survey on the computer and submits their information also is agreeing to be contacted for a continuing marketing campaign just before submitting their information. They consent to ( terms and conditions on last page of entry form / see attached QR code) Simply put, they consent to getting telemarketed by various entities. Almost nobody reads these terms and conditions as they are at an event, and in the heat of the excitement, trust that they are entering a legitimate drawing when giving all their information out on the computer. It is sad that their trust is used in such a manner. receive live sales calls or text messages all of which may use automated dialing equipment, from or on behalf of our partner( s) including Kaleo Marketing LLC, Preferred Guest Resorts, Club Boardwalk Resorts and about promotional offers regardless of any prior election to the contrary." Each representative is different, but many times, during the course of the pitch the terms " timeshare" and/ or sales presentation" are never used to explain exactly what people are signing up to do. These truths are hidden by a number of representatives. There are varying techniques, but many just tell them that they are attending a " vacation" preview and can get gifts for attending. There is one particular representative that is well- known for telling people that they have " won" free travel and other gifts and that all they have to do is go down to Anaheim to pick them up and " watch a two hour video presentation and leave a Yelp review" which is not even remotely true. The presentation is multi- faceted and a video presentation is a part of it, but it is just the warm- up for the sales pressure that comes at the end. Also, there is no requirement that they leave a Yelp Review. It is all made up.

There is another representative that works for Kaleo and is a convicted felon ( Federal Drug Trafficking). This representative, who is held up by the owner of Kaleo as being the gold standard, likes to tell people at events where Kaleo utilizes computers, that the computers only have ( insert random number) of winners a day and that they are one of the lucky few if their computer screen comes up a blue " winner". For example, " Congratulations, there are only 25 winners a night and you are winner number 8/ 12/ 17/ 20" and then proceeds to pitch them on their big win". Of course, the truth is that there are no limits to the screens coming up " congratulations" on any given night or event. Anyone who meets the requirements set by Wyndham and passes the computer credit check is invited. It' s just another technique used to make people feel that they have actually " won" something and should feel privileged and excited to attend a timeshare presentation. This particular rep also likes to tell people that they will get breakfast/ lunch at the preview which is totally untrue.

The booth( s) that are set up at outside events usually do not have computer screens. These booths, along with other booths set up by Kaleo at many other events, frequently utilize a guessing game trick to attract people to fill out a physical entry form by hand. They are told that they can " win" free travel and other things if they guess the number of items ( mini baseballs/ corks/ toy cars and others) in a clear container ( see attached pictures). They are told to fill out the physical entry form and sign the bottom ( which again gives consent to Kaleo to put them on their marketing campaign . . ( see yellow pad in attached picture) and then to put their guess of the number of balls/ items on the top of the form. Almost always, there are multiple clear containers used in this campaign and the guests are told that the number of balls/ items in the multitude of containers is identical. The truth is that the number of balls/ items in the containers is never under any quality control and that the balls/ items are taken out and/ or given out by representatives to people directly from the containers onoccasion. The number in the containers changes daily and even by the minute. The number of balls/ items in the clear containers are sometimes obviously not the same, and when it is completely obvious ( sometimes the customers are the ones to point this out), a representative or greeter will just open up one of the containers and pour some of the items from one container into another to attempt to make them appear to be the same No count is done on the number of balls at the booths. If the guesses on the top of the forms were actually looked at by Kaleo and tickets given out to winners, then there should be hundreds, if not thousands, of winners of free travel and other gifts for " correct guesses" over the last 10 years they have been doing this at your event and others. If this were a legitimate giveaway/ guessing game, upon a formal request by your organization, Kaleo should be able to produce a very long list of of winners that they have given free stuff to without having had to attend any timeshare presentation, along with their contact information and proof/ date that the gifts were actually sent. ( The number of balls/ items used in the containers are minimal and are actually fairly easy to guess/ see attached picture) Don' t expect that any list of such winners could be produced, much less one with thousands of names, because the guessing game is used solely to maximize lead forms that are filled out. It is all just a ploy to entice your customers to give up their personal information, override any protection they may have with the federal do not call list, and hopefully attend a timeshare presentation. 2 I agree and understand that sponsors may contact me regarding promotions and that this permission overrides my listing on the federal do not call list( DNC)
When Kaleo does an event where they can not set up the computers for an instant credit check ( outside booths) the reps will schedule people for the timeshare presentations with Wyndham blindly. They do not know if they will pass the credit check or not. The information for the scheduled " tours" are entered by each individual rep later ( next day or later the same day) in a system called Track Results. When they are doneinputting all the information for the people into Track and submit the information for booking, the system will let them know instantly if the people pass the credit check or not ( the computers do all this for them when used at events). When Track Results determines that someone has not passed the credit check, it will let the reps know instantly. The rep will then call the people and flat out lie to them about why they can no longer attend the in- person presentation they were initially scheduled for with Wyndham. Usually the reps will say that the preview they wanted is " overbooked". Some will say that they have reached the maximum tours for people that live within their particular zip code for the week/ month. They can say basically whatever they want. They are trained to do this by ownership and management of Kaleo. They don' t really care what excuse the reps make up, only that they unschedule them from the Wyndham presentation. The people are then told that they can actually do a zoom preview ( previously they were switched to an in- person GEVC timeshare presentations but this company no longer does business in Southern California) from their home computers for their gifts. This is not a Wyndham presentation at all. It is another vacation entity that Kaleo represents/ owns called Serenity Time which does not require a credit check but gives Kaleo an alternative way to generate income ( Wyndham is the preferred way). The goal for the reps is to get every NQ ( not qualified) Credit with Wyndham scheduled for a Serenity sales presentation as again, they are only paid for people who attend a sales presentation whether it be in- person ( Wyndham) or zoom ( Serenity). This is another example of deception that the reps engage in that is not only known about by the ownership and management at Kaleo, but is actually encouraged and specifically trained by them to do. We have obtained an internal memo in which Kaleo actually trains/ informs their reps how to secretly do an instant credit check by phone on people ( while they are standing right in front of them) and lie to people about what they are doing and then lie to them and tell them that the preview they wanted with Wyndham is " full" and then proceed to switch them to an alternate preview if they do not pass the credit check. We can forward that memo, with detailed explanation, upon request.

Summary
A timeshare company cannot run a soft credit check without authorization. While soft inquiries do not require consent and do not affect credit scores, companies typically need a permissible purpose to access any credit information. This is governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act( FCRA),which outlines that even soft inquiries should ideally be conducted with the individual' s knowledge or consent. Therefore, while technically possible, it is generally considered best practice for companies to inform individuals before conducting any credit checks, even soft ones.

Your organization/ city owes it to your patrons who attend your events, to do its due diligence on what is actually happening with Kaleo at the event( s) and elsewhere as the information contained herein is verifiable. The aforementioned formal request could be sent to Kaleo for the winners of any free travel and other gifts for the guessing game utilized in their booths ( gifts given with no timeshare attendance required), proof of the gifts being mailed, and people contacted to confirm its accuracy if any such list was ever produced. A valid one spanning the entire time they have been doing this so- called " guessing game" can' t and won' t be. They may have started to give some away in the past few weeks because they know they have been reported for this, but a valid list of winners for over the past decade can certainly not be produced.

In any regard, there are varying levels of deception as every representative is different, but this is some of what is happening yearly at your city sponsored events. There are a few representatives who are totally honest and forthcoming about what people are signing up for if they agree to attend a Wyndham sales presentation, but sadly many are not. It is disappointing that an organization as rich in tradition as yours would rent space at your events to this type of business. You surely should not need to seek extra income from a business such as this and subject your attendees to its operation and the accompanying frustration involved.

This company had booths at Dodger Stadium for the last four years but that contract has not been renewed largely in part to many written complaints being sent by fans to officials/ lawyers for the Dodgers complaining about being deceived at the stadium. The complaints vary but many involved being told that they had " won" Dodger tickets and travel and other gifts after they filled out the computer screen not knowing that they had simply met the requirements and instant credit check done by the computer to attend the timeshare presentation. Also, many were told that they would get " field level" tickets that could be used for the game of their choosing ( Dodger tickets were a gift option when they still had a contract with them), including weekends. In fact, the tickets given were only upper deck nosebleed" sets for pre- selected weekday games. Many people said they couldn' t even use the tickets because they were not able to attend on the game pre- selected by Kaleo. One person stated ( read in complaint below) that the rep 3 at the stadium told her that the tickets were good for handicapped section seating " ADA" ( she and/ or her husband were handicapped) which was a total lie and about as low as a company can go. Obviously, she was not able to use the tickets. Many others complained that they were told that the travel given was " free" which is typical for their reps at any event the work. The truth is the travel vouchers are very complicated to use, involve fees and taxes almost never mentioned by the reps, and have limited dates and times. ( see attached certificate for " not so free" vacation) Also, many stated that they sent in deposits to book the trips ($ 50 typically) and after that the company never responded to them and kept their deposits. In addition, the reps usually tell people that the hotel vouchers they will get allow them to stay at Wyndham Resorts which is not true. If they can be redeemed at all, it is for less than desirable hotels. The vast majority of people never book any trip with these.

Also, the reps were well- known for selling the bold face lie that they were " giving away Dodger tickets" at each game and further to expand on this lie by creating the illusion that by entering into the computer the " section, row and seat number" that fans could " win" the tickets ( see attached video). The section row or seat number had nothing to do with qualifying for attending a timeshare presentation ( which certainly is no giveaway) nor for winning the 3 or 4 legitimate giveaways that Kaleo was allowed under their contract with the team. It was simply used as a way to fool fans into thinking that they may have been issued a lucky ticket for the game when no such tickets existed. It also strongly suggested that the Dodgers themselves issued the lucky tickets each game to their fans and that the Dodgers were working in cahoots with Kaleo in this mendacious endeavor. ( see attached QR code for entry form / first page asks for section, row and seat). Again, the Dodgers elected not to renew their contract at the stadium.

We have obtained several hundred complaints that were sent to Dodger officials and other event promoters by people who were signed up by Kaleo Marketing. Kaleo has also been banned from other major events because of such complaints including the San Diego and LA Auto Shows, a county fair and many city- sponsored events. More of these complaints are being collected every day. Several of those complaints are below for your review ( with their personal information partially redacted).

I would ask that neither my information, nor my email, be forwarded to Kaleo Marketing. You are simply being informed of what is going on within your city sponsored events, so that again, an informed decision can be made by your city. It would not be difficult to take a deep dive into the inner workings of Kaleo and what they are actually doing at your events and beyond. It might take some effort, but that would seem to be the least you should do to be educated about how they really work and determine the truthfulness of their marketing efforts and claims, and ultimately, whether they should be allowed to continue to operate at your events at all. Whether your city has known all the particular details of how Kaleo operates up to this point is unclear but from this point forward you can not feign ignorance.

Thank you for your time.

E. C.

Some Complaints Below ( More can be sent upon request)
Hello there,
At the dodger game of 9/ 21/ 25 we were stopped by the timeshare people and they pitched the interaction to my husband and I that if we put our seat number in we' d be win a prize. We did so and the prize that we won we had to attend the timeshare presentation. Additionally we' d won the " travel vouchers". We even did the timeshare presentation to receive the travel voucher and to this day no one has gotten back to us about the travel voucher we mailed in on 10/ 6/ 25 following the presentation we went to. Also they were very pushy at the timeshare presentation.

Taylor M
Hello,
Yes! I was a victim of this Scam. There were no tickets involved, but I was promised prizes which included Dodger merch and travel and dining vouchers. None of which was actually delivered. The travel and dining is a maze that included taxes, and all other types of things. Please include my name in any official complaints. Thank you.

Hubert M
To whom it may concern.
4 This is in regard to the timeshare people that we' re at your Dodgers games, soliciting free items. Both my wife and I attended a Dodger game on April 26, 2025. It was a 6: 10 pm game time. We arrived at the game a little early And a young man called us over to fill out a form to attend one of their talks about what they had to offer, In return, we would receive two dodger tickets, and a 3 day trip to several places. Of course, we had to answer questions and then they told us we had won the free items but needed to go to this place to pick them up. I want to say in Anaheim to collect our free gifts. I took the day off from work to attend this brief session, both my wife and I attended they spoke about their timeshare or I should say they didn' t call them timeshares. They said you would own a portion of this property. After a few hours we told them no we were not interested. They persisted and we once again said no thank you so after the third time of asking us. After this they did not treat us very nice. They asked us to go downstairs to receive our gifts. They gave us two pieces of paper one with a number to call for dodger tickets, and the other was a fill out portion in which they would notify us of our choice to visit, which was Las Vegas. We filled out all the paperwork that was requested mailed on 5/ 3/ 2025 for the Vegas trip and called for the tickets but never received anything. It was very disheartening since we trust our Dodgers and the Dodgers company that we would not be scammed this way. Please find attached the paperwork that was given to us, And hopefully we will hear from you soon with some kind of resolution. I really appreciate all your help. Any questions please feel free to contact me at 626- 7xx- xxxx.

Sincerely
Johnny S
Azusa, CA 91702
Good day,
Thank you for reaching out and offering information to combat scams. I did encounter this exact problem and did not realize it was a timeshare contract. I signed for a vacation wyndham program after they offered me hotel specials when trying to receive my " prize " I' d won at the expo. The details of the sale and fees were different than I understood and now they are refusing to cancel the Worldmark membership despite me trying to resolve for weeks and never using any booking.

Because of the way it was explained by the office representatives I thought it was a viable membership fee but it was presented as less than the true charges and I cannot manage it.

Do you possibly have any information on how to handle this when Wyndham refuses to process my cancellation request?
Thank you for your time,
Clarissa W.

Send details on how to file written complaint. Was promised a getaway and never received any follow up when block of dates was selected and submitted. No call back and not response when we call them.

Hello,
We were part of this marketing presentation and the information provided to us was misleading. We do not live in California so we were unable to attend a Dodgers game, but we did participate in the zoom presentation for the travel vouchers. We bought a travel voucher and had issues booking the trip with them so we never ended up going. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Thank you,
Makala R
5 Hello yes we were told to attend at a place " a presentation" he said we didn' t have to buy anything just attended the presentation to win tickets to a dodgers game, not knowing it was for timeshare, they were very persistent and on us to make a purchase but I put my foot down and said we just came for our free dodger tickets and they told us we had to get in contact with the person who sent us there, once in contact with Marcus he told us he wasn' t authorized to give us those tickets and he never responded again to our texts.

We paid more with the free cruise than if we would have booked it on our own.

Thanks,
Gabriel L
Yes I want to complain as well they lie to you about winning tickets and the voucher for a vacation is also false and also about the the 100$ for a food voucher is also a lie.

Mirian
Thank you for reaching out. As it turns out, we were one of the many unlucky ones scammed by Wyndham and their partners. They first shorted us Dodger tickets, then made it impossible to redeem their travel vouchers. We have yet to redeem the food credit so it' s possible that' s a fail as well. We would be interested in receiving your Dodger contact' s email( s) and then vetting them before sharing our full documented experience directly with the organization.

Thanks again,
Dodger ( not Wyndham) fans
Gigi P
6 Y. WYam:'[[ Y n n. Wiar, nav Oe h.- C. Lf
a•1•ri+'?Y.• enr.. r.'.`[vaa[ r3[n:, wh"fi'n. i s.4l.r Wsr: h. T.. rL. 46' 51 141MVfA? rtNf3VelLVk- ML14I aka nWMCff Ge CL U 6 Yk171r* OM n W, KW20 r. 9kh rryf te, ki. MSRiJV Ctidils- buT1+s '_ Cre'.rchye:llina:.`.4+Sttlam'.:LlgtrAtMYfeIV-11r11n',[9`UL""o arilaWUM-M11UtrrvF B. S- 7i1' f0. ahp to Yw': yl1VYn11 ePIh. 510 pY. r 5nf: r Y their" aSald lydd. lak77 r.+. nlnlN] ned- 1[m[' rriu? f.rissr:[ ls lrwily- ulnl s:tr iu[•. Lvl.

MINWrulu'.- rlWenWAINnTT.nrySi J.nk1:Yy..;.LStlamfMnbal aaMr1L1IM"wtnlnran}h:+UvaCtU1WIIMba.fMUWentlM.IL2[rllmkodrS3N15.lrrarylh.,.nW.1.Yu (owbw1c111'+,MMfiul7nnrb»PM d..Ylt`; hlr.[ pyrervaar.` wfa le I_ n.qn 9j' I mnn aoNW dn! mrwu.

Y/. nS[{ a. arn h' I 1NTat rmr. IM! w+ hra. h' H' N+ I+ Fpnw' gfi tlar. P— WY. vacs! nn msn tAj Wft- lHh Ja 1.M' nth. m Y+ u1N:+ 3 glsM- 41rr:. Rr Wtrdrrn iirygrv: l% Y{ ieRrr' M efr Y. Y: in It, 4/ a Yh" tlriirY b.'' M' ralranL, Vq Iw+' R. YGk7i kmcu- r h v] Lra Ih. ry$ L5{ i} t'. 90 w+ lh an. rrxrtsl raN v117. 14y r4+ Ux m. orun r, wv. l p.` ndn! G,'? if+[ ai4 e Ilr.i.r+mhills.nrlvrn»tial-rratdlQliNm.,t itiiaw{ra:.ayiLnrort'+hvnfl'r4nN.Ifcwrrnr,V0.!l4xnar rim,I[ yYlYn rFh_! C k YI nneuv, W: I lv r+ uyA Ter YW G6 lkrr[ Frr.• nunu• o. f. Mrp 1T11rrsl. rNsan- tl: nllw IsIFM 1ravl. raw aaccral Mrs onrr. p• alr sfi., uk r. rw+ Y. rc->, wr b.' ricr,,,-.. o-.;.. µ. l. lh, rW r. wf: rc`ru n.rfs- lM r..n,... l ram.SrMS LYssnrl. ere,; M». eaPi, l. b MlttYr` ar aliNAi- kia i' f56 ar Weldrlah it kVl U•ritrvsrrerrt!': w Le.fvr , 4shtMliMin' 8` bY. r.

P- s t•. R' s s+. d tills•.. i: r";< ":.] rs hnAl lh. tl.: r-' Ih, You can chaose to stop recelving" jrescreened" otters of cre llt from this and Other caln¢ enies by calling to Me 1- 8$$- 567- 6688. Sce PRESCREF" A QPT-0UY NCTICE below for more information about prescreened oriera. e3iSiA3eY i. iPT Out w. l L[ t Inc rf trcerrrLAI' or In_ + r[
rycl kl AIL a I sr IL{. Ihd>; al
J7na+.. aakuar. d t rah so I/ C([ m o{ w 1 x[ s1r lake k, a— i r ar a' 1 + L L f sa. t* : ea{ rrc cllerr d crmut irfruaru ova G, , BeaYex a
G&W
rn vwa.'? 4} See,= rdr. l,•i ; re., sa r s. 7- 3.. Et [ -"= ti, lC: tl ldlnm ac 11.
v
Z0
IAA\
e\
11 I
5 9
s
1f ///
a>
Z
ti
i
r $
rn
va'
i
w
m
Z
8 j `
y
I

05. 0
0o
y
g
I/
fr
aS
1 3g
E
c
c
ooa3i'
n
mg
000
DOD
0 t
1 1r
l
it
r
i
q
III
010II/
Ifl
1 dreamvacationwee
DREAMTurnYour Vacation Dreams Into Reality
Stop dreaming about your next vacation and start planning it! This Dream Vacation Week certificate can be used to book a weeklong resort stay in condo- style accommodations around the world. And the prices — based on unit size — are super- affordable! Stud One- bedroom—, Two- bedroom
329 399 429
PER WEEK PER WEEK — W:
47 per- night 57 per- night
average average
do
I
CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 74458935
SECURITY CODE: 78T6
EXPIRATION DATE: 01/ 28/ 2028
Syr
Start planning your Dream Vacation Week!
s
r

ACTIVATE YOUR CERTIFICATE HERE
Click here for full terms and conditions.
r
CERTIFICATE CONDITIONS You must be at least 21 years old to reserve or use resort accommodations. All reservations are final and nonrefundable. Reservations are available on a first- come, first- served, space- available basis, and some blackout dates may apply. Reservations must be made between 24 hours and 180 days prior to check- in. Travel must be completed by the expiration date included under the Certificate Information section. The Dream Vacation Week certificate program is provided by Worldwide Vacation& Travel, Inc., a Florida corporation located at 9995 S.W. 88th Street, Miami, FL 33176. For complete terms and conditions, please go to dreamvacationweek. com.

WVT is registered with the State of Iowa as a Travel Agency, Registration Number 837; the State of Washington as a Seller of Travel, Registration Number 601 765 244; and the State of California as a Seller of Travel, Registration Number 2030985- 50. WVT is exempt from registration as a Seller of Travel with the State of Florida( ST- 10224). Registration as a Seller of Travel does not constitute approval by the State of California. California and Washington law requires certain sellers of travel to have a trust account or bond. WVT has bonds issued by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland in the amount$ 50, 000 each in the State of California and the State of Washington. WVT does not participate in the Travel Consumer Restitution Fund in California.

DRWO103- 0221- PDF
IL
ilk
Ago
i
1 r
1 r
r
l
411NO11)
t
Becerra, Alexis
From: Eric Craig <
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 11:33 AM
To: City Clerk; Parksandrecreation; Carvalho, Sonia R.

Subject: Timeshare ( Kaleo Marketing) in Chicano Heritage Festival ( and other Santa Ana events)
Attachments: Pitchbook Cover (gift list shown to customers).pdf, Wyndham Gifts (with some terms and restrictions). pdf, Gift Cost List Wyndham. pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

City of Santa Ana ( Please forward to full city council):

Please find attached the gift sheets shown to customers by Kaleo Marketing alongside documents detailing the actual costs of these items. These are third party vouchers purchased by Wyndham and given away for doing the previews not stays at Wyndham resorts).

As previously discussed, Kaleo/ Wyndham management' s primary focus is on gifts with high " perceived value" but that are cheap to obtain. Because these gifts incentivize presentation attendance and cost very little. They focus on this rather than the actual quality of the offerings. In other words, they only care that people think they are getting something of real value for attending the timeshare presentations and not that they actually do. Older incentives like sports tickets and gift cards have been discontinued due to cost, leaving travel vouchers purchased from third- party vendors ( such as Holiday Adventure and True Incentive, True Incentive 7 Night Condo Stays, Restaurant. com cards and others) as virtually the only choices.

A comparison of the gift lists against their actual costs ( see attachment) suggests these vouchers are near impossible to redeem. And even if they can be, they involve substantial taxes, advanced bookings and many other hoops to jump through to even begin to redeem ( see complaints previously sent). For context, the acquisition costs are as follows:
3/ 4/ 5 Day Cruise for two: $ 20. 00
Holiday Adventure ( 2- Night Stay): $ 18. 00
Tropical Adventure ( 5- Day/ 4- Night Stay): $ 54. 00
True Adventure Resort Condo Stay( 7 Nights): $ 25. 95
100 Restarant. com: $ 11 (Sold by virtually all the reps as dollar for dollar gift cards useable at thousands of restaurants)
It does not take a genius to figure out for example, that a voucher for a 5 Day Cruise for two ( food included) would only cost$ 20. 00 and actually be redeemable on its face nor a 7 Night Condo stay( supposedly worldwide) for$ 25.95. There is also attached a summary of the voucher restrictions compiled by Kaleo, which includes requirements such as 60- day advance notice and additional taxes. Please note that the actual vouchers contain extensive additional terms and alternate date requirements not covered in this summary. Furthermore, previous customer complaints indicate that hidden fees can elevate the final cost above standard market rates; in one instance, a customer paid nearly$ 1,000 to redeem a cruise voucher, which was more than the retail price paid by acquaintances booking directly with the cruise line ( see complaints previously sent).

These full restrictions/ taxes/ specifics are not disclosed by representatives during the booking process. You will see another attachment which is a watered- down version of the terms and conditions for the trips put together by Kaleo Marketing ( never shown to customers). If you ever got a hold of one of the actual vouchers you would find that the terms and restrictions involve much more complicated stuff than what is on this sheet. If the actual details of the terms 1 and conditions of the travel vouchers were divulged no one would give up their valuable time to attend a timeshare sales presentation for them.

This is what will be allowed to happen at your event if Kaleo Marketing/ Wyndham Resorts is allowed to attend your events.
z
07 TRAVEL PACKAGES
8 Day/ 7 Night Resort Condominium Vacation
In the US, Canada, Caribbean & Mexico)
4 Nights Beach Vacation
Cabo San Lucas, St. Maarten, St. Thomas, Grand Cayman,
Bahamas, Orlando, Puerto Vallarta, Cancun)
3 Day/ 2 Night Weekend Holiday
over 15 cities including Palm Springs, Las Vegas, San Diego, Sedona, Reno, Cocoa Beach, Lake Tahoe, San Carlos, Cabo San Lucas, and more!)
Sun & Fun Cruise Vacation
Choice of 3, 4, or 5 Night Itinerary
Multiple ports of call, multiple cruise lines)
Wyndham Spend A Night on Us
Dining Dough

9. 29. 2023
Wyndham Gifts
4 Night Beach COST: 30
Good in Cabo San Lucas, St. Maarten, Grand Cayman and other tropical locations No Hawaii
Good for 5 day/ 4 night standard resort hotel
Not valid during major holidays( postal) and special event periods 60 day advance booking
1 year to use
Tax about$ 50 per 4 night stay
Activate within 30 days by mailing in
No airfare/ accommodations only
Holiday Adventure COST: 18
Good in San Diego, Palm Springs, Vegas, Tahoe and a bunch of other spots Good for 3 day/ 2 night standard hotel
Not valid during major holidays( postal) and special event periods 60 day advance booking
1 year to use
Tax about$ 25 per 2 night stay
Activate within 30 days by mailing in
No airfare/ accommodations only
Tropical Adventure COST: 54
Good in Maui, Oahu, Grand Cayman and other tropical locations Good for 5 day/ 4 night standard resort hotel
Not valid during major holidays( postal) and special event periods 60 day advance booking
1 year to use
Tax about$ 50 per 4 night stay
Activate within 30 days by mailing in
No airfare/ accommodations only
THE GETAWAY COST: 35
Good in Vegas, Tahoe, Phoenix, Palm Springs, San Diego.. over 20 different cities Good for 3 days, 2 nights( 7 days a week) in a Std. hotel Not valid during major holidays( postal) and special event periods 45 day advance booking
1 year to use
Tax about$ 30 per 2 night stay
Activate within 30 days by mailing in
SPEND A NIGHT ON US( REBATE) COST: 11
Good at Wyndham, Wyndham Grand, Wyndham Garden, or Wingate Hotel Reserve at least 7 days in advance
Mail original hotel receipt within 30 days of actual stay Include with receipt" Spend a Night on Us" rebate coupon Allow four weeks for delivery of rebate check
Rebate amount per coupon is$ 100 dollars
Dining Dough COST:$ 11 PER$ 100— Max Allowed$ 300
Over 18, 000 restaurants Nationwide.

Most put RESTRICTIONS such as Sunday— Thursday only, Alcohol not included, etc.

Must first pay$ 20- 35 dollars of your check, then the Dining Dough can be applied

2. 1. 2024
Wyndham Gift Costs
Anaheim, Inn at the Park, Mission Valley, Oceanside, Oceanside Harbor, Harbour Lights Gift Description Cost
3/ 2 A Holiday Adventure 18. 00
5/ 4 A Tropical Adventure 54. 00
FPT 3/ 2 Getaway 53. 00
2 Dodgers Tickets 44. 00
2 Anaheim Ducks Tickets 50. 00
Spend A Night on Us 11. 00
Spend A Nights on Us 36. 00
RCI Week 75. 00
100 Dining Dough 11. 00
50 Dining Dough 6. 00
25 Dining Dough 3. 00
25 AMEX 25. 00
50 AMEX 50. 00
100 AM EX 100. 00
25 Disney 23. 75
50 Disney 47. 50
Wyndham Rewards- 15, 000 70. 05
Wyndham Rewards- 30, 000 140. 10
True Incentive- 3/ 4/ 5 Cruise 20. 00
True Incentive- 4/ 5/ 7 Cruise 43. 95
True Incentive Resort Condo Vaca 7 night stay 25. 95
3/ 26/
2023I
Becerra, Alexis
From: Alex Brown <
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2026 9:46 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Public comment for the city council meeting
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Look at a just- published column by Ed Boks, the former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, whose work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, and Newsweek.

Orange County Animal Care: A Case Study in California' s Oversight Vacuum https:// animalpolitics. substack. com/ p/ why- californias- shelter- oversight Why is the city doing nothing about the mounting scandals at OC Animal Care- the county shelter the city contracts with?
1 From: Silvia Martinez
To: eComment
Cc: Kwak. Jason
Subject: Santa Ana Ca. 92706
Date: Friday, August 28, 2026 11: 24: 12 AM
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

URGENT- REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION REGARDING POSSIBLE RETALIATION AND EVICTION , REF: PERMISSION NUMBER# B- 26- 00341
lull
R
z
1 a
a
a
e
Z
kk)! §
g})()}\\\)
k&&®
Ila
l - - - , , » -
f} ! ! ! /
2 ) /
70 CD
k
a: ! &
t/:
e7
i
E'
s
A {
5a
off! }/ !
Ora
J!®
f
Ra
f : §, -,!!

I )
if | \ & \{ § ( \ {
k
k
v, .
y= ,
Fy -°
oc9c
cv,
aiJ
c
o
3 Q !
J
C`
2y
zyu
i.

I)
yryp
M•
O ++
G
T
v
CJ.J
August 28, 2026
Dear Members of the Santa Ana City Council and City Officials:

I am respectfully requesting that the City urgently investigate our situation before any remodeling begins.

My family and I have lived at this property for 31 years, approximately 20 years in one apartment and 10 years in another. There was a change of ownership in 2019. Since then, our situation has become very difficult, especially after I began reporting problems to the City.

Our apartment is currently habitable. However, the owner, Paul Dhaliwal, now wants us to leave because he says he plans to remodel it.

There is also an ongoing issue regarding our rent. Since May 1, 2026, the owner has refused to accept our rent checks. On June 5, 2026, we received a written notice from the owner regarding our tenancy. We provided that document to the Fair Housing Council, which reviewed it and informed us that the notice was not valid. I am including a copy of that document for the City to review.

The owner also gave us a copy of remodeling permit B-26- 00341, which includes work in the kitchen and bathroom. On July 10, Inspector Cesar Jimenez, accompanied by Armando Chavez, came to the property. However, as far as I observed, the inspector did not enter our bathroom. We would like to know how the bathroom was evaluated before the remodeling was approved.

The owner also gave us no information about where we are supposed to stay during the remodeling, whether we can remain in the apartment, how long the work will take, or how the apartment will remain habitable.

On August 25 at approximately 7: 56 p. m., the manager came to our apartment and gave us a sticky note. She also verbally told us that the owner wanted us to leave voluntarily so our credit would not be affected when renting another home.

We are concerned that this may constitute tenant harassment, intimidation, coercion, and/ or retaliation related to our previous complaints to the City. We respectfully ask the City to investigate.

We are also concerned about the safety and quality of the proposed work. In February 2024, a worker named Sandro replaced an electrical box in our kitchen, but it was installed incorrectly. It remained that way for approximately two years until the City required it to be corrected and the owner hired an electrician.

There are three people in our household. I am 55 years old, my daughter is the only person currently working, and my son is disabled. I am his primary caregiver.

This situation has caused us severe stress, anxiety, and difficulty sleeping, and we are very afraid of losing our home.

Please urgently investigate the permit, the proposed remodeling, including the bathroom, the refusal to accept our rent, the request that we vacate, and the possible retaliation before any work begins.

I am including the permit, the August 25 note, the document related to the request to vacate, the Fair Housing documentation, and photographs. I will send a separate letter with the owner' s history of violations and additional photographs.

Please respond to this letter, confirm that you received our complaint, and let us know what actions the City plans to take to help us in this situation.

Thank you for taking our concerns seriously.

Sincerely,
Silvia Martinez
Cell:

Email:

Becerra, Alexis
From: Bob Mills <
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 4:01 AM
To: Amezcua, Valerie
Subject: To The Honorable Mayor, Valerie Amezcua Re: Montclair used car dealer: alleged rip- off- 2nd location in Santa Ana
Attachments: Calif Vehicle Code-RE- Smog Cert .pdf, FTC_Warning- letter-to- fontana- motors- direct_ 3- 11- 26.pdf, FTC_Warning- letter- to- california- motors- direct_ 3- 11- 26.pdf, CMD_Yelp_Reviews_8-27-26 .pdf, Chat GPT_RE- CMD_8-26-26.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Subject: Possible Consumer- Affairs Story:

Used-Car Purchase and Smog-Certification Fraud
Robert Mills
September 2, 2026
Dear Honorable Mayor of Santa Ana, Valerie Amezcua,
Thank you very much for your time and support— I just sent this to the Voice of Orange County Newspaper.

The sad news is that this used car dealer has an outlet in your city.

Dear Admin, Voice of Orange County News,
It is with great sadnessthat I inform you that I will never return to Montclair, Fontana, or the Orange County to buy anything.

I believe I was ripped off when I bought a used car from California Motors Direct( CMD) in Montclair, California. I have lost more than$ 30,000, plus upcoming attorney fees.

As I have researched this matter, I have found hundreds of consumer complaints, including the attached Yelp reviews, and other negative reviews involving:

California Motors Direct( CMD), a used- car dealer at: 10385 Central Avenue, Montclair, CA 91763. The General Manager is Albert Ramirez, ( 909) 895- 4459.

The business also has locations in Santa Ana and Fontana. To my knowledge, the Federal Trade Commission has issued two warning letters concerning advertised pricing practices.

Only warning letters??!
That is all I have found so far.

The BBB lists 51 complaints against the Montclair location in the last two years, and 49 are listed as" Unanswered." What does that show you?( Attached.)
Hundreds of consumers have complained about being ripped off.

CMD does not care.
1 Hundreds have complained about used cars purchased at CMD that broke down the next day or soon thereafter and/or displayed" Check Engine" error messagesshortly after leaving the lot. That happened to me.

Many consumers reported that their vehicles had been in accidents before purchase and appear to have been acquired inexpensively at auction and cheaply repaired. This happened to me and a Toyota Dealer Service Manager was able to look up the whole history of the vehicle on their database and confirm these findings.

Consumers report lost money, lost time, and expensive repairs needed within days.

Consumers report dealer fees, price manipulation, and other allegedly false or misleading business practices. ( SeeFTC Warning Letters")
Seethe attached Yelp reviews.

Consumers report that a mandatory$ 2,500" Anti- Theft" insurance policy was added to the price of a car without the customer' s knowledge, and told: " It' s already installed." Consumers report that paperwork was not received until two days after the sale, after the" two- day dealer warranty" expired.

Consumers report no dealer responsibility, no accountability, and no restitution.

Consumers report losing tens of thousands of dollars. This is what happened to me.

The FTC warning letters raise concerns about advertised pricing practices. They are attached.

These reported practices harm the reputation of these communities, the automotive industry, and other local businesses.

No media outlets has taken up the call to help consumers, and I feel the legal and regulatory systems have done little to protect us.

I bought a car that will not pass smog. I believe the dealer, its smog vendor, or another party may have provided or obtained an improper or fraudulent smog certificate in order to complete the sale.

As I drove away from Montclair, one hour after purchasing my 2022 Toyota Prins, four" Check Engine" error messages lit up the screen, including: " Hybrid Battery Malfunction. Visit Your Dealer." CMD said they would fix the problem, but they did not.

A couple of weeks later, I took the car to two Toyota dealerships. Two Toyota- certified dealership mechanics told me that the car will not pass smog and needs approximately$ 6,00048, 000 in repairs, or more. I paid for these Toyota dealership evaluations.

Now I am stuck. I cannot renew the registration, cannot sell the car, and face substantial repair bills and attorney fees.

My concerns involve California Vehicle Code sections 4463 and 24007. Please seethe attached materials. I have filed complaints with the DMV, Bureau of Automotive Repair, and Department of Consumer Affairs, and have contacted the local mayor and police department. We will see if they take any action.

If you are interested, I believe there is an important consumer- affairs story here: a nightmare involving used-car dealers and consumers who say they have been manipulated and taken advantage of. A media spotlight could bring relief, help protect thousands of future consumers, encourage enforcement of existing laws that protect innocent citizens, and help restore the reputation of your town.

Real journalism puts people first, not money, and has the courage to shine a light on injustice. Where is Erin Brockovich when you need her?
Isn' t this what you do— shine a light on injustice and help people? Please send me a reporter with the courage to investigate this story.

Thank you very much,
2 Robert Mills
Citizen and consumer in Southern California for over 50 years PS- I have lots of other materials for the investigative reporter. 3 Does a used car dealer have to provide a valid Smog Check Certificate when selling a car in California?
Yes.

California Vehicle Code Section 24007 is the primary law that requires a dealer or seller to provide a valid smog check certificate when selling a used vehicle. l,) The Law Offices of And... + 1
Key Details
The Law. Under California Vehicle Code § 24007, no dealer or person can sell a vehicle at retail without providing a valid smog certificate of compliance to the buyer at or before delivery.

Is it a crime to falsify a Smog Check Certificate in California? Yes.

Falsifying a smog check in California is a violation of Vehicle Code Section 4463, which criminalizes fraud or forgery involving vehicle registration documents, including smog certificates. This offense can lead to serious penalties, including felony charges and imprisonment. I& egattorneys. com Qheddinglawfirm.com California Vehicle Code Violation for Falsifying a Smog Check Relevant Code Section
Falsifying a smog check in California is a violation of Vehicle Code Section 4463.

This section addresses fraud or forgery related to vehicle registration documents, which includes smog certificates.

Penalties for Violating VC 4463
The consequences for violating this code can be severe. Here's a breakdown of potential penalties:

Charge Type Possible Penalties
Misdemeanor Fines up to$ 1,000
Up to 1year in jail
Felony Up to 3 years in prison
Significant fines and a felony record
Summary of Offenses Under VC 4463
The following actions are considered violations under this code:

Creating or forging false smog certificates.

Possessing or displaying a fraudulent smog certificate with the intent to deceive.

Altering existing smog certificates to misrepresent vehicle compliance.

Engaging in any of these activities can lead to serious legal repercussions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to California' s vehicle registration laws.

Q Justia 0 heddinglawfirm. com

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20580
Bureau of Consumer Protection
March 11, 2026
Via Federal Express
Fontana Motors Direct
15836 Valley Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
Re: Deceptive Pricing

WARNING LETTER
Dear Fontana Motors Direct:

This letter is to advise you that you may be advertising prices for cars that are lower than what you actually charge consumers. Such deceptive tactics harm not only consumers, but competition, by making it hard for law- abiding businessesto compete on an evenplaying field.

One of the FTC' s enforcementpriorities is ensuring that advertisedpricing is transparent and truthful. When consumers do not know the true price of a car— or any product— consumers and others suffer related consequences, including that consumerscannot comparison-shop and make informed decisions, sellerstrying to deal honestly with consumersareput at a competitive disadvantage, and the market cannot operateefficiently. This is why the FTC hasfocused on promoting price transparency across multiple markets, including rental housing, 65 ticketing and
hotels,
66 grocery delivery services,
67 and auto sales and leasing.68 The FTC is committed to ensuringthat the price consumersseein advertising is the actual price they will pay (asidefrom required government charges, like taxes). This is what the FTC Act, which prohibits deceptive or unfair acts or practices, requires.

Examples of illegal pricing practices include:
advertising a price that does not reflect all required fees, advertising a price that reflects rebates or discounts not available to all consumers, 65E.g., Complaint, FTC v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, No. 1:25-cv-00165 (D. Colo. Jan. 16, 2025). 66E.g., Complaint, FTC v. Live Nation Entertainment, No. 2:25-cv-8884( C.D. Cal. Sept. 18,2025); seealso Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, 16 CFR Part 464( effective May 5, 2025). 67E.g., Complaint,FTC v.Instacart,No. 3:25-cv-10783(N.D. Cal. Dec. 18,2025). 68E.g., Complaint, FTC v. Lindsay Chevrolet, No. 1:24-cv-02362( E.D. Va. Dec. 27, 2024)( alleging dealerships advertised prices they refused to honor and falsely claimed consumerswere required to obtain financing through the dealership); Complaint, FTC v. Leader Automotive Grp., No. 1:24- cv- 13047( N. D. Ill. Dec. 19, 2024)( alleging dealerships deceived consumersabout the price and availability of vehicles, including by requiring consumersto pay additional fees for pre- installed products or charging consumers for those products without their knowledge); Complaint, Asbury Auto. Grp., Inc., No. D- 9436( F.T.C. Aug. 16, 2024)( alleging dealershipsinflated prices by adding hidden charges and requiring that consumers buy additional items). advertising a price that fails to take into account the amount of an additional required down payment,
conditioning the advertisedprice on consumersusing dealerfinancing, requiring consumersto buy additional items not reflected in the advertisedprice, and advertising unavailable or nonexistent vehicles.

I am concernedthat your company may be engaging in one or more of thesepractices.

Accordingly, I encourageyou to review your practices, including by making surethe prices you advertiseinclude all required feesand chargesasidefrom required government charges, to ensure you are complying with applicable laws. This would include, at a minimum, evaluating your advertisedprices and actualprices and confirming they match.

This letter is not intended to be a comprehensive statement of concerns that may exist aboutyour dealership or dealershipgroup. Nor is it intended to representany conclusions on whether your dealership or dealershipgroup is engaging in thesepractices. It is your company's responsibility to comply with all requirements of federal law, including Section 5 of the FTC Act and other laws andrules enforced by the Commission. We will continue to monitor the marketplace and take additional action aswarranted. Additionally, pleasenote that I am distributing similar notifications to other auto dealers.

Copies of the cases discussed in this letter are available on the Commission' s website at www. ftc. gov. The Commission' s website has other important resources designed to ensure that businessesknow their responsibilities under the FTC Act and other laws andrules enforced by the Commission.

Sincerely,
s/ Christopher Mufarrige
Christopher Mufarrige
Director
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Federal Trade Commission
2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20580
Bureau of Consumer Protection
March 11, 2026
Via Federal Express
California Motors Direct
2345 N. Grand Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Re: Deceptive Pricing

WARNING LETTER
Dear California Motors Direct:

One of the FTC' s enforcementpriorities is ensuring that advertisedpricing is transparent and truthful. When consumers do not know the true price of a car— or any product— consumers and others suffer related consequences, including that consumerscannot comparison-shop and make informed decisions, sellerstrying to deal honestly with consumersareput at a competitive disadvantage, and the market cannot operateefficiently. This is why the FTC hasfocused on promoting price transparency across multiple markets, including rental housing, 29 ticketing and
hotels,
30 grocery delivery services,
31 and auto sales and leasing.32 The FTC is committed to ensuringthat the price consumersseein advertising is the actual price they will pay (asidefrom required government charges, like taxes). This is what the FTC Act, which prohibits deceptive or unfair acts or practices, requires.

Examples of illegal pricing practices include:
advertising a price that does not reflect all required fees, advertising a price that reflects rebates or discounts not available to all consumers, 29E.g., Complaint, FTC v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, No. 1:25-cv-00165 (D. Colo. Jan. 16, 2025). soE.g., Complaint, FTC v. Live Nation Entertainment, No. 2:25-cv-8884( C.D. Cal. Sept. 18,2025); seealso Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, 16 CFR Part 464( effective May 5, 2025). 31E.g., Complaint,FTC v.Instacart,No. 3:25-cv-10783(N.D. Cal. Dec. 18,2025). 12E.g., Complaint, FTC v. Lindsay Chevrolet, No. 1:24-cv-02362( E.D. Va. Dec. 27, 2024)( alleging dealerships advertised prices they refused to honor and falsely claimed consumerswere required to obtain financing through the dealership); Complaint, FTC v. Leader Automotive Grp., No. 1:24- cv- 13047( N. D. Ill. Dec. 19, 2024)( alleging dealerships deceived consumersabout the price and availability of vehicles, including by requiring consumersto pay additional fees for pre- installed products or charging consumers for those products without their knowledge); Complaint, Asbury Auto. Grp., Inc., No. D- 9436( F.T.C. Aug. 16, 2024)( alleging dealershipsinflated prices by adding hidden charges and requiring that consumers buy additional items). advertising a price that fails to take into account the amount of an additional required down payment,
conditioning the advertisedprice on consumersusing dealerfinancing, requiring consumersto buy additional items not reflected in the advertisedprice, and advertising unavailable or nonexistent vehicles.

I am concernedthat your company may be engaging in one or more of thesepractices.

Sincerely,
s/ Christopher Mufarrige
Christopher Mufarrige
Director
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Federal Trade Commission
2 YELP Reviews of California Motors Direct, Montclair, CA Note: First review is from Jenna, a devastated first- time car buyer - from a few days ago! ( 8- 25- 26) There are hundreds more of these.)
elp;
A -- - ---- ...------ •--
F Backtosearch
yelp X
jenna'
Urban Honolulu, HI
@0 06 04
Filt
Aug 25, 2026 Request quote&
Featured
Qo 3phetos availability
F
This was my first experience buying a car, and unfortunately, it was one of the worst experiences I've You can now request a quote from this n
ever had with a dealership. I worked extremely hard for this car, so I expected to be treated with business directly from Yelpbasic respect and professionalism. Instead, I left feeling completely taken advantage of and ignored. w
See From the beginning, we repeatedly told them that we were NOT financing through the dealership Request quote& availability and that we would be financing through my personal bank. Despite telling them multiple times, they Features still added GAPinsurance to the deal. They also quoted me an 18%APR,claiming it was" the lowest" Hotan they could get me.

ACep Schedule a Test Drive!
Dogs
They promised me a full detail and a full tank of gas, neither of which I received. What made the Ap situation even worse was when an employee took my brand- new car to supposedly get gas. Hewas See
gone for about an hour, and when he returned, he had food and drinks in MY car. We were shocked to see him treating a car I hadjust purchased like it was his own. olsta
suds
The car also wouldn' t start when we first got it because it had apparently been sitting in the Driving( showroom for a while. We were told the battery would be replaced, but that never happened. I iemotorsdirect. com Biking( 2 mi.)
ended up having to bring the car home using a supercharger.

Walking( 1 mi.

Within 4 blot 1When we confronted the dealership about the employee driving my car around and bringing food 909) 895- 4459 and drinks Into it, the employees and managers laughed it off, saying things like," Haha, he's young, you know, kids." That response was completely unacceptable. Beingyoung is not an excuse for disrespecting someone else' s brand- new vehicle. Get Directions 10385 Central Ave Montclair, CA Q
The GAP insurance situation was another nightmare. They kept giving us the runaround and 91763 apparently never submitted the paperwork. We called countless times trying to get answers, and when we asked to speak with a manager, they would ask for our names and then hang up on us.

Message the business Q
This entire experience was extremely frustrating and disappointing. Buying your first car should be exciting, but this dealership made the entire process stressful and miserable. The lack of communication, professionalism, accountability, and respectwas unbelievable. Suggestanedit I would absolutely NOTrecommend this dealership to anyone, especially a first- time car buyer.

Please do your research, understand your financing, read every document carefully, and don't assume that promises made verbally will actually be honored.

For me, this was a nightmare of an experience and definitely never again. 1 See all photos from jenna m. for California Motors Direct- Montclair Q 6 Qd C9
SOME of the
Yelp Reviews of California Motos Direct, 10385 Central Ave, Montclair, CA 91763 8- 19- 26. ( Note the recent dates of the reviews: 8- 7- 26, 8- 5- 26, 7- 11- 26, 6- 24- 26, etc) Gabriella W.

San Diego, CA
0 010 B2
Jul 11, 2026
DO NOT BUY A CAR FROM CALIFORNIA MOTORS DIRECT. Honestly this has by far been the worst customer service experience of my life. I bought a car from them and LESSTHAN 24 HOURS LATER THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND ONE DAY LATER IT BROKE DOWN. Imagine spending thousands of dollars on a" new" car just to have it become undrivable the very next day. I brought it back the day after waited there the whole day wnd they told me it would probably be fixed by the end of the day. Instead they couldn't even figure out what was wrong with it. They sent me home in an Uber and promised they would call me at 8:00 AM the next morning, keep me updated, and" take care of me," including getting me a rental and to not worry because I'd be taken care of. That phone call never happened and since then I've had to call everyday to get updates cause not one person has been communicative and I've been told it' s supposed to be ready asap once the parts arrive and it' s almost been THREE WEEKS, and I've been left completely without a car. Not once has management reached out to me. Not once. Every single update has come because I called them. If I stopped calling, I'm convinced I would never hear from them again. I've been told at least 20 times that the manager would call me back. Twenty times. Every single time it' s," He' s not here,"" He' s off today," or" We' ll leave him a message." Apparently, leaving messages is all they know how to do because the manager has never had the decency to return a single call. Does the manager even exist at this point?? Meanwhile ive spent thousands of dollars on Ubers because the car they sold me almost immediately brake down. No rental. No reimbursement. No accountability. Just excuse after excuse after excuse.

I've also been told multiple times that" the parts are here" or" the car should be ready soon," yet somehow weeks keep passing with no resolution. It's nothing but empty promises and zero communication they all say they' ll give me a call with an update and I get no call. The saddest part is that some of the employees have actually been kind and apologetic. This review is directed at management, because they have shown they couldn' t care less about their customers once the paperwork is signed. this level of carelessness is genuinely unreel I cannot believe this business is still open. Selling someone a car that breaks down the next day is bad enough. Ignoring that customer for weeks, refusing to return calls, leaving them stranded, and forcing them to spend thousands on transportation afterward is completely unacceptable. If this is how California Motors Direct treats customers after making a sale, then people deserve to know before they hand over their money. Save yourself the stress, the wasted money, and the endless frustration. Buy your car somewhere else literally anywhere else
9 Q 9
Helpful 3 Thanks 1 Love this 0 Oh no 1
Richard B.

Ontario, CA
3 055 015
Aug 5, 2026
d 1photo
Buyer Beware: California Motors Direct( Montclair)
Request quote&
If I could give zero stars, I would.
availability
Buying a car from California Motors Direct in Montclair has been one of the worst purchasing experiences I' ve ever had. What should have been an exciting day turned into months of frustration, You can now request a quote from this misleading information, financing problems, and paperwork errors that are still not resolved eight business directly from Yelpmonths later.

My salesperson, Harper, told me that I had to purchase several expensive add- ons in order to buy Request quote& availability the vehicle. That turned out to be completely false.

The first add- on was a GPS tracking system that cost approximately$ 2,500. In my opinion, this was nothing more than an overpriced add- on. You can buy an AirTag or another tracking device for a tiny Schedule a Test Drive! fraction of that price.

The second add- on was a powertrain protection plan. It was presented to me as if it would cover Book now anything that happened to the engine or motor. Only after I got to the dealership did Ifind out that it only covers certain major components, not many of the repairs I was led to believe would be covered.
iemotorsdirect. com l
The third add- on was GAP insurance, which I was also told I needed. After putting$ 5,000 down on the vehicle, I didn' t believe GAP coverage made sense for my situation because I had already significantly reduced the amount I was financing. Instead of explaining when GAP insurance is 909) 895- 4459 actually beneficial and allowing me to make an informed decision, it was simply presented as another product I needed to purchase.

Get Directions
After I finally spoke with the manager, he agreed to remove all of these add- ons. However, instead 10385 Central Ave Montclair, CA O of simply correcting the original loan paperwork, the dealership opened an entirely new loan, 91763 creating even more unnecessary confusion and headaches.

As if that wasn' t enough, the dealership misspelled my last name on my registration paperwork. It Message the business Q has now been eight months, and they still haven' t corrected their mistake. I still have not received the corrected paperwork because they have failed to complete what they need to do with the DMV and my lender. I' ve spent countless hours making phone calls trying to get this fixed, and it still isn' t suggest an edit resolved.

This entire experience has been stressful from beginning to end. Between the misleading sales tactics, the pressure to buy expensive add- ons, the financing mistakes, and the ongoing registration issues, I have completely lost confidence in this dealership.

My advice is simple: take your business somewhere else. There are plenty of dealerships that are honest, transparent, and know how to treat their customers. Based on my experience, California Motors Direct failed me at every step of the process.

I would never purchase another vehicle from California Motors Direct, and I would never recommend this dealership to my family or friends. Read the reviews before you buy-- you may save yourself months of frustration.

MYEXPO=

2. m yR rr. ru, u a
Marcos S.
to
Ontario, CA
4W ® o O1 Bo
Aug 7, 2026
If you value your time and your money, please go somewhere, 100% I'd rather go to a real dealership, just that my daughter wanted a 22 Honda Accord, we tried this place out. Everything seemed good. we scheduled to go back so they could remove some and replace some damage parts on the vehicle. On appointment day, she picked up the vehicle and noticed another dent on her hood. They said fix it in an hour, made my daughter wait four hours and a half so they can tell her that they could not take care of a dent, to schedule another appointment had my daughter waiting with no answers because she was a girl and no manager or supervisor in sight. I called and no one could help me out would give them a zero. if I can avoid this place, I would. I would never buy another vehicle from them and would never recommend them to none of my family or friends Phil B.

Agoura Hills, CA
@0 Q4 ( D0
Ju n 24, 2026
when in to purchase a car, the sales person asked if I wanted thief insurance which I refused. It took almost an hour for them to prepare the paperwork. They started shoving papers at me to sign I would guess 50, They also had me sign on a pad for a couple of the contracts. When I got home I realize they charged me$ 3000 for theft insurance that I declined originally. after reading reviews, This dealership uses this to scam their customers out of money.

Q 6 Q 0
Helpful 1 Thanks 0 Love this 0 oh no 0
F Back to Search
yelp
Alejandra A.

Ontario, CA
@0 Q1 03
Aug 5, 2026
Q 4 photos
Here is my honest review after 3 months with my car.( Don't waste your time/ money here).

When I was getting ready to buy this car, I had been speaking with a salesman for a week about the car I wanted. The salesman let me know the car was getting work done on the front bumper so I wasn' t able to test drive the car before buying( My first mistake). The next week, I had made an appointment with the salesman to pick up my car. When I got there, the salesman never showed up so I had to work with someone new. The new salesman had no idea what I was there for and had no information about the car. I was there for almost 3 hours and they ended up telling me the car wasn' t ready to be picked up. There is no communication between the workers in the dealership and the service shop. Anytime I asked for an update they stated they would" call me back" and never did. They towed the car to my house the next day at 9pm. HOWEVER,I wrote some reviews explaining my experience working with them before the car was delivered and the dealership REFUSED TO DELIVER UNLESS I TOOK THE REVIEWS DOWN.

A few days after my car was delivered, the SRSAirbag alert came on, then my skid plate was torn off as I was driving, and the parking sensors never worked. I took the car back to the dealership because they offered free service and they" fixed" the skid plate with zip ties, they" fixed" the SRS airbag by erasing the code( it came back on the next day), and they never acknowledged the parking sensors. I took the car back four times!! The skid plate got ripped off the same day they" fixed it".

They NEVERprovided me the paperwork on all the services I brought it in for. They also claimed the SRSAirbag alert was due to a" loose wire".

Yesterday I took my car to the Lexus of Riverside for service as the windshield washer reservoir completely came off, was hanging by wires and was scraping my tire because the skid plate was gone. The Lexus dealership also let me know that the car had been in a front end accident and there had been major fixes to the front end of the car. Lexus dealership told me there were parts in the cars engine compartment that were welded that shouldn' t have been welded; therefore, the Lexus dealership recommended I take it to a body shop. The Lexus dealership let me know there had been a lot of" fixes" on the car that were not true fixes. I let the Lexus dealership know I got the car from CALIFORNIAMOTORSDIRECTIN MONTCLAIRand they told me they were known to be shady with their cars.

Suzanne T.

Woodland Hills, CA
293 O 23 0 19
Mar 25, 2026
MAJOR RED FLAGS... STAY AWAY FROM THIS DEALERSHIP!!!
My husband and I found a car they listed on CarFaxand a few other sites...that Iwas interested in purchasing outright.
1wasn' t seeking to negotiate pricing... I was fine with the FULL LISTED price. 1didn' t need financing... I wanted to purchase the car OUTRIGHT in ALL CASH.

The ONLYthing I needed was an HONESTout the door price so I could bring that amount with me!!! I live 4. 5 hours away from this dealership... so I needed to know how much money I'd need to secure the car when I came in to buy it. After speaking to them initially... my decision was made. I called back to talk to Daniel... and informed him that I wanted to purchase the car... and wanted him provide me with the" OUT THE DOOR" price... so I could bring the needed cash and set up a day to come buy it. He told my hubby and I that he' d call us back with that information.

This was his response in the form of a text:

Hi Brian! just spoke with my manager to try and get you an out the door price, but he mentioned we don' t go over exact numbers on the phone, just to keep everything transparent and fair for our customer. He's confident we' ve got one of the best prices in the market and doesn' t want our numbers being shopped around. If you' re serious about getting the best possible deal it' ll definitely be in person, he' d just need you to come down so we can make it happen for you." ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? I WANTED THE CAR... NO NEGOTIATION JUST THE PRICE so I could go to my bank and withdraw that amount and drive the 4. 5 hour drive to get it. That is an AWFUL way to do business. I didn' t want to waste an entire day driving down there to" talk" about a price that was clearly visible and wasn' t even being negotiated... I just needed to know what the total price was going to be after taxes, fees, license and registration. I can' tjust drive down there and withdraw that kind of cash from an ATM. RED FLAG CITY... GO ELSEWHERE TO BUY A CAR!!! 9 Q3 C0
Helpful 13 Thanks 7 Love this 1 Oh no 3
Alex H.

Business Customer Service
May 26, 2026
Thank you for sharing your feedback. We understand your concerns regarding the pricing communication and the information provided during your inquiry process....

Abraham N.

Rancho Cucamonga, CA
87 0 30 S 14
Apr10, 2026
Bought a car from them last week 3/ 31... i am now taking it back to them via tow because of engine issue. This shouldn' t be happening after they stated the car being serviced/ inspected by the manufacture dealership. Having the car for only a week i had came back to the dealership for their mistakes 4 times now including today, Doesn' t offer anything to make up for inconvenience. We' ll see how this goes, will update this for future prospects 9 6 C
Helpful 1 Thanks 1 Love this 0 Oh no 4
Alex H.

Business Customer Service
May 26, 2026
Thank you for sharing your feedback. We understand your concerns regarding the vehicle condition, service experience, and the repeated visits required after your purchase.,,.

Read more
julia s.

Upland, CA
0 ( j) 7 B0
Jan 16, 2026
1bought a Toyota Camry from here beginning of December. So I need to bring a few things to light so future buyers don' t fall in to the same trap. DO NOT agree to the ridiculous car alarm scam. It was$ 2000 and it's absolutely useless. They make it seem like you can't get the car unless you purchase the alarm because" it's already installed". Well that' s a lie. They can remove it. The price they lure you in with is not the actual price. So a typical bait and switch however they have disclaimers". So I bought the car anyway. The tires were old and needed new tires. As part of the agreement to buy this car they said they would give me a $180 credit toward new tires and they even have their own shop. Great... NOT. They replace with used tires. So I asked if I could have them install new tires of my choice. Yes they could. Brilliant!... NOT. I bought the car on a Tuesday, paid in full, and on Friday they still had the car. No update. just" waiting on the tires". I asked if I could pick up the car and get my own tires and still get the $ 180 tire credit. Frank our sales person said " of course, we' ll mail it to you". I picked up the car. Got my own tires that day. No idea why it took them so long to get tires in their tire shop! Anyway, it's now a month later and still no check in the mail.

Aftertexting, emailing and calling I finally got the answer. They only give a tire credit if you use their tire shop that only has used tires. That' s obviously not what I was told. They lie. They cheat. It was a really horrible company to deal with. It doesn' t have to be this way. Shame on them. Go elsewhere.

There are used car dealerships that have integrity. This is NOT one of them. 9 6 T 0
Helpful 4 Thanks 2 Love this 1 Oh no 1
F Backtosearch
yelp-;'
Michelle G.

Montebello, CA
4010 ® 0 06 e14
Oct 6, 2025•& Updated review
Qo2photos
At this time it's Difficult to say if I'd recommend California Motors. Montclair... I'm Definitely leaning more on the' I would Not' recommend.

My BMW was Purchased on 9/ 20/ 25, However my BMW was Delivered on 9/ 22/ 25., car was Delivered Dirty as well with a Sensor Light On& the Sales Rep was aware the Sensor Light was On& still Delivered it without even Looking into it(??)
I was Told by the Sales Rep it was a Tire Sensor Light( low air), I took care of it( sensor light never went off Days after).??
I'm now being Assisted by the General Manager whose Name is Albert.

I Had to take Day Off of Work'& Took my BMW back to the Dealer being like 3 Days after it was Delivered.

I was at the Dealer about 5 hits or so turns out it was not a Sensor for the Tires( it was a Sensor light having to do with the Battery since the Check Engine Light was also Going On& Off Iwas Happy finally after 5 hrs or so of waiting& finally leaving the Dealer On my way Driving back Home from the Dealer. shortly after leaving the( 10- 15min into My Drive) Sensor Light' is Back On'?!,
Issue is STILLNOT RESOLVED.,pending& hoping I get my car hopefully before the 2nd week of now October.

Note- I wrote a Review on their Website& Included Pictures., I think California Motors. Montclair took it Down( i have to Inquire on that)?
I'm able to see My Reviewon my Phone. however Hubby does Not see My Reviewwhen hewent into the' Reviews from his Phone!?
BMW was Delivered with the Light Sensor s... Check Engine Light is the 1st Sensor'& the 9 10 lqll Q
Helpful 4 Thanks 1 Love this 1 Oh no 1
Marcos S.

Ontario, CA
90 01 00
Aug 7, 2026
If you value your time and your money, please go somewhere, 100% I'd rather go to a real dealership, just that my daughter wanted a 22 Honda Accord, we tried this place out. Everything seemed good. we scheduled to go back so they could remove some and replace some damage parts on the vehicle. On appointment day, she picked up the vehicle and noticed another dent on her hood. They said fix it in an hour, made my daughter wait four hours and a half so they can tell her that they could not take care of a dent, to schedule another appointment had my daughter waiting with no answers because she was a girl and no manager or supervisor in sight. I called and no one could help me out would give them a zero. if I can avoid this place, I would. I would never buy another vehicle from them and would never recommend them to none of my family or friends 9 Q 0
Helpful 1 Thanks 1 Love this 0 Oh no 1
El Elyon G.

Pomona, CA
0 02 00
Mar 21, 2026
Listen to the negative reviews. They are 100% on point! So here is the deal, the online prices are firm and why they are firm is because they install$ 2k plus of anti theft and gps crap that you don' t need. They won' t tell you this up front. It's then shown to you as optional packages but then when you say you don' t want them, they tell you it' s already on it and they won' t remove them.

They also want financing, they don' t want cash. Ultimately the cost of the car equals the cost of a newer car at CarMax. So a 13k car ends up being closer to 20k. Offer to buy it outright for 10- 12k and they squirm and don' t want to do it. Their entire business is about charging the extra packaging.

They' ll let you take it for inspection and be nice but, honestly, don' t waste time or money on these scummy guys. Go to CarMax or find another dealer that doesn' t preload tons of crap onto their cars.

These jokers don' t want to move cars, they want to move packages and get kickbacks.

Lastly, Frank the manager is a con artist, Arms covered in tats with religious icons and plays friendly until you catch on to their scummy practices. Once you do, he stays hidden and the minions take the heat. There are quite a few employeesthat just don't look comfortable there and the ones that came to pick up the car after inspection were not friendly at all. They know they work for scammers.

Don' t trust any of them. What they are doing likely violates several laws in Cali although some of it is very borderline,
9 4 V
Helpful 2 Thanks 3 Love this 2 Oh no 1
Alex H.

Business Customer Service
May 26, 2026
Thank you for sharing your feedback. We understand your concerns regarding the pricing structure, optional vehicle protection products, and the overall communication during your visit....

Read more
Chat GPT: RE: CMD
Yes— there are enough public items that we should set a limit before collecting them all.

My preliminary count shows:

Source Initial count found Notes
BBB— California Motors Direct 51 complaints BBB lists all three locations under this profile and says 49 were profile unanswered. 0 BBB profile
BBB— Fontana Motors Direct 24 complaints Separate BBB profile; it may overlap with the related- business records, profile so I would not simply add the totals without checking. 10 Fontana BBB profile
Montclair Google/ Birdeye about 2, 796 Google The aggregate page shows 2,848 total, including 2,796 from Google. aggregate reviews This includes positive and negative reviews. ` e Montclair aggregate Fontana Yelp 399 reviews Apple Maps currently displays Yelp' s count and 2. 9 rating. i Fontana listing
DealerRater 128 reviews Montclair 39; Santa Ana 89. Montclair • Santa Ana CARFAX verified reviews at least 32 for Montclair Separate platform; likely more across the other branches. I[3I CARFAX Montclair
FTC public action 2 official warning One to California Motors Direct and one to Fontana Motors Direct, dated letters March 11, 2026. These are warning letters, not lawsuits or findings of liability. Fm FTC warning- letter listing
Lawsuits found in this first pass 1 claimed settled matter A law firm' s page says" Johnson v. California Motors Direct" settled with a repurchase. I would verify any court case through official docket records before relying on it. W3Attorney page
Reddit/ social posts several public posts These are individual claims/ opinions— not verified agency complaints. located
So, conservatively, there are at least 3, 000+ public review entries across major platforms, plus 75 BBB complaint records shown across two possibly overlapping profiles, two FTC warning letters, and at least one publicly claimed civil settlement.

I recommend we do not try to retrieve thousands of reviews. A useful next step would be one of these:

Becerra, Alexis
From: Nikolai Tiritilli <
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 8:06 PM
To: eComment; gerald.tiritilli@icloud. com; Lopez, Jessie; Amezcua, Valerie Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Public Records Request# 26- 2449 and Case # 2026- 18545
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am submitting this as a formal complaint regarding the handling of my public records request and my request for access to evidence connected to an incident in which I am a victim.

Incident Information:

Officer: G. Mendez
Badge#: 3910
Vehicle#: 1697716
Date/ Time: August 31, 2026, approximately 8: 30 a. m.

Case#: 2026- 18545
Public Records Request#: 26- 2449
Date of Request: September 1, 2026
The incident involved a reported sexual assault that occurred in front of a bus and involved an individual experiencing apparent mental instability.

I am concerned about the manner in which my Public Records Act request is being handled. I am requesting video evidence and other records relating to this incident because I am a victim and the requested material is directly relevant to the incident and my ability to understand and document what occurred.

I understand that Government Code § 7923. 600( a) concerns certain law- enforcement investigative records and that exemptions may apply. However, I am requesting that the Department identify the specific legal basis for withholding any requested records rather than simply refusing to provide them. If the Department believes the video or another requested record is exempt, I request a written explanation identifying the specific exemption being relied upon and whether the record can be released in whole or in part through redaction.

I also request that the Department review whether any victim- access provisions of the California Public Records Act apply to my request. California law contains provisions specifically addressing information that law- enforcement agencies must provide to victims, and I am requesting that those provisions be considered in evaluating my request.

I am also concerned that my Public Records Request# 26- 2449 has not been handled appropriately and that the Public Records Unit is failing to provide the records or a legally sufficient explanation for withholding them. I respectfully request that a supervisor or appropriate command- level official review the handling of my request.

Please provide me with:

1. A written determination regarding Public Records Request# 26- 2449.

2. The specific statutory authority for withholding each requested record or video.

3. Any portions of the requested records that can legally be released, including redacted copies where appropriate. 1 4. A written explanation if the requested video cannot be released.

5. Confirmation that all potentially responsive video evidence has been preserved and will not be destroyed while this matter and my request are pending.

6. The name and contact information of the person responsible for reviewing this complaint and public- records request.

I am requesting that this matter be treated seriously because the records concern an incident in which I was personally involved as a victim. I am seeking lawful access to records and evidence concerning the incident, not confidential information unrelated to the matter.

Please consider this correspondence a formal complaint regarding the handling of my request and provide a written response.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Nikolai
Email Address]
2 Becerra, Alexis
From: Nikolai Tiritilli <
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 8:29 PM
To: Amezcua, Valerie; gerald.tiritilli@icloud. com; eComment; Lopez, Jessie Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Public Records Request# 26- 2449 and Case # 2026- 18545
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. public records says:

Policereports and associatedaudio and video are not subject to public releasepursuant to Government Code 7923. 600( a). As the requestor, if you believe you are entitled to a report because you are named in the report as a victim or as an involved party ( authorized representatives must obtain a signed waiver) you may submit a request via the NextRequest portal Please contact Santa Ana Police Recordsat 714-245-8600 if you need additional assistance. yet:

Gov: If you were the victim, you can request the video, but § 7923. 600( a) does not automatically require police to give you the video.

If they deny it, you can demand that they:

State the specific law/ exemption they are using.

Explain why the video cannot be released or redacted.

Confirm the evidence is being preserved.

That is the stronger argument for your complaint.
1 Becerra, Alexis
From: Nikolai Tiritilli <
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 10:38 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Complaint Regarding Parking and Parking Citations at Park on First Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Park on First Management,
I am writing to file a complaint regarding the parking situation at Park on First.

Residents pay rent for their apartments and are also paying for assigned parking spaces. However, when a resident' s assigned parking space is unavailable because another vehicle is occupying it, residents may have to park elsewhere temporarily and can receive a parking ticket.

I would like to know what residents are expected to do when their paid parking space is occupied by another vehicle.

Why should a resident receive a parking citation when they are paying for a parking space but cannot use it because someone else is parked there?
I am requesting a written explanation of the parking policy and what residents should do in this situation. I would also like to know what assistance management provides when a resident' s assigned parking space is improperly occupied.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Nikolai Tiritilli
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Nikolai Tiritilli <
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 10:41 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Complaint Regarding City Council and Mayor Email Contact Information Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear City of Santa Ana,
I am writing to submit a complaint regarding the lack of easily accessible email contact information for the Santa Ana Mayor and City Councilmembers on the City' s website.

Residents should have a clear and convenient way to contact their elected representatives, especially when they need to ask questions, submit concerns, or request assistance. Having email addresses clearly available on the City website would make communication between residents and their elected officials more accessible.

I respectfully request that the City review its website and provide clear, current email contact information for the Mayor and all City Councilmembers.

Thank you for taking the time to review my concern. I would appreciate a response explaining where residents can find the appropriate email addresses and whether the City plans to make this information easier to access.

Sincerely,
Nikolai tiritilli
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Michael Mavrovouniotis <
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 6:42 PM
To: eComment
Subject: General Public Comment to the City Council [ OC Animal Care] Attachments: EXE APP - 2021 - 0931610000078.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

City residents should know that city staff are inexplicably tolerant of scandals involving OCAnimal Care. Recently, the OC Animal Care director emailed city staff, in an attempt to distort the facts. That' s what someone does when the facts are too damning to take face- on.
emailed city staff and rebutted the animal shelter director' s preposterous claims. ( See below.) I received no answer, no inquiry, no interest.

Your contract with OC Animal Care was signed by this same director. Based on what we know, can you trust this director? Is the contract even worth the paper it' s printed on?
Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael Mavrovouniotis<
Subject: the OCAC director' s email ( July 20) was out of line Date: August 20, 2026 at 6: 46: 09 PM PDT
To: JDraper@cypressca. org, IKokot@cypressca. org, pgrant@yorbalindaca. gov, jmorgan@cityoforange. org, SMcGovern@lakeforestca. gov, DRose@lakeforestca. gov, bmalenofski@anaheim. net, Bsiegel@sanjuancapistrano. org, Jarrod. Frahm@fountainvalley. gov, MReischl@sanjuancapistrano. org, Meghan. Wishner@fountainvalley. gov, MFranceschini@tustinca. org, nbernard@tustinca. org, PGarcia@sanjuancapistrano. org, tiaras@ci. brea. ca.us, tsalo@santa- ana. org, aschulze@cityoforange. org, hallen@anaheim. net, Maggie. Le@fountainvalley. gov, msorenson@santa- ana. org, RReilly@hbpd. org, sfranks@villapark. org, tedwhite@anaheim. net, aestes@yorbalindaca. gov, tiaras@cityofbrea. gov, MArchibald@anaheim. net, kristing@cityofbrea. gov, Robert. Cortes@fountainvalley. gov, jgripentrog@santa- ana. org, jlampman@placentia. org, Eddie. Manfro@cityoffullerton. com, jhilden brand @cityoforange. org, thopkins@surfcity- hb.org, rbauman@lakeforestca. gov, aschindler@tustinca. org, kim. chaudhry@cityoffullerton. com, ssabo@sanjuancapistrano. org, sreis@cityoflosalamitos. org On Monday, July 20, 2026, the OCAC director emailed City managers and other City staff about my previous public comments to cities. It appears that the OCAC did not attach the documents to her message, so I am attaching them here.

She described the comments as referring to: " personal property holdings in a manner that extends beyond matters related to my public role." The OCAC director continued with " While this has no bearing on my employment or my responsibilities, I have chosen to maintain my family home in Texas while also owning a home in Orange County. All matters related to both properties are appropriately managed and in good standing."
To anybody that reads the documents, both of the OCAC director' s statements are patently false. 1 There' s already a news report on this:

Voice of OC, July 30, 2026
Does Orange County' s Animal Care Director Live in California? https:// voiceofoc. org/ 2026/ 07/ does- ora nge- cou ntys- a n ima I-care- di rector- Iive- i n- ca Iifornia/ The head of Orange County' s embattled animal shelter is facing questions over remote work, with questions about how much time she spends between Texas and California.

The issue is NOT whether the shelter director owns two properties. It is where she holds her permanent residence, and that can only be one state, Texas or California. The documents have her declaring herself a Texas resident, a fact known to many shelter staff for years. This absolutely relates to her job, because the County requires its employees to be California residents ( look up the county' s Personnel and Salary Resolution). The OCAC director cannot claim she satisfies California residency when the documents show her as a Texas resident. And if she does claim California residency, maintaining Texas driver' s license and plates is a violation of California law.

The shelter director acted the way a guilty party would: She portrayed this as an issue of property ownership ( which nobody cares about), and said nothing about which state is her legal residence, how that meets the county requirements, and whether she followed California law. The rest of us changed our driver' s license and car plates when we moved to California. ( Well, I did. Maybe most of you didn' t.) As city managers, you are on the hook. You took this director' s word at every turn. By treating this as normal, you' d be suggesting that you have no problem with senior full- time staff in your cities doing the same thing. Or, worse, that it' s already happening. You' d be suggesting that you don' t care much about the law.

You cannot act as if you' re mere by-standers.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael Mavrovouniotis<
Subject: the documents the OCAC director didn' t want you to see Date: August 20, 2026 at 6: 56: 09 PM PDT
To: [...]
Showing, unequivocally, Texas residency in a period coinciding with full- time on- site work( allegedly) in Orange County.

These were obtained via a public records request to Harris County, Texas. That counties property records allow anyone to search for property ownership.
2 Residence Homestead Exemption Application
1 Harris County Appraisal District
2 Information & Assistance Division % d Account Number: 0931610000078 P. O. Box 922012 y
o Houston TX 77292- 2012
r ' Tax Year:
2021
Form 11. 13( 01120)
Do you own and live in the property for which you are seeking this residence homestead exemption? Yes No
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Return the completed form to the address above. For questions, call 713- 957- 7800. This application is for use in claiming residence homestead exemptions pursuant to Tax Code Sections 11. 13, 11. 131, 11. 132, 11. 133, 11. 134 and 11. 432. The exemptions apply only to property that you own and occupy as your principal place of residence. You must file the completed application with all required documentation beginning Jan. 1 and no later than April 30 of the year for which you are requesting an exemption. If you qualify for the age 65 or older or disabled persons exemption, or the exemption for donated homesteads of partially disabled veterans, you must apply for the exemption no later than the first anniversary of the date you qualify for the exemption. Pursuant to Tax Code Section 11.431, you may file a late application for a residence homestead exemption after the deadline for filing has passed. The late application must be filed within two years after the delinquency date for the taxes on the homestead.

DUTY TO NOTIFY: If the chief appraiser grants the exemption( s), you do not need to reapply annually. You must reapply if the chief appraiser requires you to do so. You must notify the chief appraiser in writing before May 1 of the year after your right to this exemption ends.

OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION
After considering this application and all relevant information, the chief appraiser may request additional information from you, pursuant to Tax Code Section

11. 45. You must provide the additional information within 30 days of the request or the application is denied. For good cause shown, the chief appraiser may extend the deadline for furnishing the additional information by written order for a single period not to exceed 15 days.

SECTION 1: Exemption( s) Requested
General Residence Homestead Exemption Disabled Person Person Age 65 or Older( or Surviving Spouse) 100 Percent Disabled Veteran ( or Surviving Spouse) Is the disability a permanent total disability as determined by the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs under 38 C. F. R. Section 4. 15? .................. Yes No Surviving Spouse of an Armed Services Member Killed in Action Surviving Spouse of a First Responder Killed in the Line of Duty Donated Residence of Partially Disabled Veteran ( or Surviving Spouse) Percent Disability Rating
Surviving Spouse:

Name of Deceased Spouse Date of Death
Cooperative Housing: Do you have an exclusive right to occupy this property because you own stock in a cooperative housing corporation? ...................................................... Yes No If yes, state name of cooperative housing corporation:

Were you receiving a homestead exemption on your previous residence? ................................................. Yes No Are you transferring an exemption from a previous residence? .................................................................... Yes No Are you transferring a tax limitation?.............................................................................................................. Yes No Previous Residence Address, City, State, Zip Code Previous County SECTION 2: Property Owner/ Applicant( Provide information for additional property owners in Section 5.) Single Adult Married Couple Other( e. g., individual who owns the property with others) Monica M. Schmidt
Name of Property Owner 1 Birth Date*( mm/ dd/ yyyy) Driver' s License, Personal ID Certificate or Social Security Number-
100
Primary Phone Number( area code and number) Email Address*** Percent Ownership Interest Name of Property Owner 2( e. g., Spouse, Co- Owner/ Individual) Birth Date*( mm/ dd/ yyyy) Driver' s License, Personal ID Certificate or Social Security Number—
Primary Phone Number( area code and number) Email Address*** Percent Ownership Interest Applicant mailing address( if different from the physical address) Residence Homestead Exemption Application
SECTION 3: Property Information
12/ 17/ 2017 1985
Date you acquired this property Date you began occupying this property as your principal residence Physical Address( i.e. street address, not P.O. Box), City, County, ZIP Code Lot 78 Block 2 Songwood Section 2
Legal Description( if known)
Is the applicant identified on deed or other recorded instrument? 0 Yes
Court record/ filing number on recorded deed or other recorded instrument No If no, required documentation must be provided. ( see Important Information) Is the property for which this application is submitted an heir property( see Important Information)? YesW] No Do other heir property owners occupy the property? Yes( affidavits required) No Manufactured Home Make Model ID Number
Is any portion of the property for which you are claiming a residence homestead exemption income producing?..................................... Yes0 No If yes, indicate the percentage of the property that is income producing: percent Number of acres( or fraction of an acre, not to exceed 20 acres) you own and occupy as your principal residence: acres SECTION 4: Waiver of Required Documentation
Indicate if you are exempt from the requirement to provide a copy of your driver' s license or state- issued personal identification certificate.

I am a resident of a facility that provides services related to health, infirmity or aging.

Facility Name and Address
I am certified for participation in the address confidentiality program administered by the Office of the Texas Attorney General under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 58, Subchapter C.

Indicate if you request that the chief appraiser waive the requirement that the property address for exemption corresponds to your driver' s license or state- issued personal identification certificate address:

I am an active duty U.S. armed services member or the spouse of an active duty member.

I hold a driver' s license issued under Transportation Code Section 521. 121( c) or 521. 1211. Attached is a copy of the application for that license.

SECTION 5: Provide Additional Information Here ( if any) If you own other residential property in Texas, please list the county( ies) of location.

I had a residential exemption in 2017- 2020. Suddenly it disappeared in 2021. Please reinstate and back date.

SECTION 6: Affirmation and Signature
I understand if I make a false statement on this form, I could be found guilty of a Class A misdemeanor or a state jail felony under Penal Code Section 37. 10.

Monica M. Schmidt swear or affirm the following:

Property Owner/ Authorized Representative Name Title/ Authorization

1. that each fact contained in this application is true and correct;

2. that I/ the property owner meet( s) the qualifications under Texas law for the residence homestead exemption for which I am applying; and

3. that I/the property owner do( es) not claim an exemption on another residence homestead or claim a residence homestead exemption on a residence homestead outside Texas.
signo„
here 4 01/ 13/ 2022
Signature of Property Owner/ Applicant or Authorized Representative Date May be used by appraisal district to determine eligibility for persons age 65 or older exemption or surviving spouse exemptions( Tax Code

11. 43( m))
Social security number disclosure may be required for tax administration and identification.( 42 U.S. C.§ 405( c)( 2)( C)( i); Tax Code§ 11. 43( f)). A driver' s license number, personal identification number or social security number disclosed in an exemption application is confidential and not open to public inspection, except as authorized by Tax Code§ 11. 48( b).

May be confidential under Government Code§ 552. 137; however, by including the email address on this form, you are affirmatively consenting to its release under the Public Information Act.

Residence Homestead Exemption Application
Important Information

APPLICATION DEADLINES EXEMPTION QUALIFICATIONS
Generally, the completed application and required documentation is due no General Residence Homestead Exemption( Tax Code Section 11. 13( a) later than April 30 of the year for which the exemption is requested. and( b)) Property was owned and occupied as owner' s principal residence on Jan. 1.

The due date for persons age 65 or older, disabled, or partially disabled No residence homestead exemption can be claimed by the property owner veterans with donated homesteads to apply for the exemption is no later on any other property. than the first anniversary of the qualification date.

Disabled Person Exemption( Tax Code Section 11. 13( c) and( d)) Persons A late application for a residence homestead exemption may be filed up to under a disability for purposes of payment of disability insurance benefits two years after the deadline for filing has passed. ( Tax Code Section under Federal Old- Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. Documentation

11. 431) must be provided. Property owners not identified on a deed or other instrument recorded in the applicable real property records as an owner of If the chief appraiser grants the exemption( s), property owner does not need the residence homestead must provide an affidavit or other compelling to reapply annually, but must reapply if the chief appraiser requires it, unless evidence establishing the applicant' s ownership interest in the homestead. seeking to apply the exemption to property not listed in this application. An eligible disabled person age 65 or older may receive both exemptions in the same year, but not from the same taxing units.

Property owners already receiving a general residence homestead exemption who turn age 65 in that next year are not required to apply for Age 65 or Older Exemption( Tax Code Section 11. 13( c) and( d)) age 65 or older exemption if accurate birthdate information is included in the This exemption is effective Jan. 1 of the tax year in which the property appraisal district records or in the information the Texas Department of owner becomes age 65. Property owners not identified on a deed or other Public Safety provided to the appraisal district under Transportation Code instrument recorded in the applicable real property records as an owner of Section 521. 049.( Tax Code Section 11. 43( m)) the residence homestead must provide an affidavit or other compelling evidence establishing the applicant' s ownership interest in the homestead.

REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION An eligible disabled person age 65 or older may receive both exemptions in Attach a copy of property owner' s driver' s license or state- issued personal the same year, but not from the same taxing units. identification certificate. The address listed on the driver' s license or state- issued personal identification certificate must correspond to the Surviving Spouse of an Individual Who Qualified for Age 65 or Older property address for which the exemption is requested. Property Exemption( Tax Code Section 11. 13(q)):
owners who reside in certain facilities or participate in a certain address Surviving spouse of person who qualified for the age 65 or older exemption confidentiality program may be exempt from this requirement. The chief may receive this exemption if the surviving spouse was 55 years of age or appraiser may waive the requirements for certain active duty U. S. armed older when the qualifying spouse died. The property must have been the services members or their spouses or holders of certain driver' s licenses. surviving spouse' s residence homestead at the time of death and remain the surviving spouse' s residence homestead. This exemption cannot be Heir Property is property owned by one or more individuals, where at least combined with an exemption under 11. 13( d). one owner claims the property as a residence homestead, and the property was acquired by will, transfer on death deed, or intestacy. An heir property 100 Percent Disabled Veterans Exemption( Tax Code Section 11. 131( b)) owner not specifically identified as the residence homestead owner on a Property owner who receives a 100 percent disability compensation due to deed or other recorded instrument in the county where the property is a service- connected disability and a rating of 100 percent disabled or located must provide: individual unemployability from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or an affidavit establishing ownership of interest in the property its successor. Documentation from the Veterans Administration must be a copy of the prior property owner' s death certificate; provided to support this exemption request. a copy of the property' s most recent utility bill; and a citation of any court record relating to the applicant' s ownership of the Surviving Spouse of a Disabled Veteran Who Qualified or Would Have property, if available. Qualified for the 100 Percent Disabled Veteran' s Exemption( Tax Code Section 11. 131( c) and( d))
Each heir property owner who occupies the property as a principal Surviving spouse of a disabled veteran( who qualified for an exemption residence, other than the applicant, must provide and affidavit that under Tax Code Section 11. 131( b) at the time of his or her death or would authorizes the submission of this application. have qualified for the exemption if the exemption had been in effect on the date the disabled veteran died) who has not remarried since the death of Manufactured homeowners must provide: the veteran. The property must have been the surviving spouse' s residence a copy of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs homestead at the time of the veteran' s death and remain the surviving statement of ownership showing that the applicant is the owner of the spouse' s residence homestead.
manufactured home;
Donated Residence Homestead of Partially Disabled Veteran( Tax Codea copy of the sales purchase agreement, other applicable contract or Section 11. 132( b))
agreement or payment receipt showing that the applicant is the A disabled veteran with a disability rating of less than 100 percent with a purchaser of the manufactured home; or
residence homestead donated by a charitable organization at no cost or at a sworn affidavit by the applicant indicating that:
some cost that is not more than 50 percent of the good faith estimate of the

1. the applicant is the owner of the manufactured home; market value of the residence homestead as of the date the donation is

2. the seller of the manufactured home did not provide the made. Documentation must be provided to support this exemption request.applicant with the applicable contract or agreement; and

3. the applicant could not locate the seller after making a good Surviving Spouse of a Disabled Veteran Who Qualified for the Donated faith effort. Residence Homestead Exemption( Tax Code Section 11. 132( c) and( d)):

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUEST
Surviving Spouse of a disabled veteran( who qualified for an exemption under Tax Code Section 11. 132( b) at the time of his or her death) who has The chief appraiser may request additional information to evaluate this not remarried since the death of the disabled veteran and maintains the application. Property owner must comply within 30 days of the request or property as his or her residence homestead.
the application will be denied. The chief appraiser may extend this deadline for a single period not to exceed 15 days for good cause shown.( Tax Code Surviving Spouse of a Member of Armed Services Killed in Action( TaxSection 11. 45) Code Section 11. 133( b) and( c))

DUTY TO NOTIFY
Surviving spouse of a U.S. armed services member who is killed in action who has not remarried since the death of the service member.

Property owner must notify the chief appraiser in writing before May 1 of the Documentation must be provided to support this exemption request. year after his or her right to this exemption ends.

Surviving Spouse of a First Responder Killed in the Line of Duty( Tax Code Section 11. 134)
Surviving spouse of a first responder who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty who has not remarried since the death of the first responder.

Documentation must be provided to support this exemption request. 33153- 01132022
C7
f
5 dri
N
X
X
USA
j
V ,.

Z .o
M3
m
F
e00 r
m
m
014e--
Becerra, Alexis
From: Nikolai Tiritilli <
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 3:20 PM
To: eComment
Subject: make me a email talk about how the cops for the new law have to provide you a email so you can email your complaint against the cops so you can have it in writing Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Dear Santa Ana City Council,
I am writing to propose a new law or city ordinance regarding police complaints.

I would like the law to require Santa Ana police officers to provide members of the public with an official department email address for the officer they are making a complaint about. This would allow residents to submit their complaint in writing and keep a copy for their records.

Having the officer' s official email address would provide a clear written record of the complaint, including the date and time it was submitted. It would also make the complaint process more transparent and accessible to the public.

I respectfully ask the City Council to consider this proposal and determine how this requirement could be implemented while protecting the privacy and safety of officers and residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Nikolai
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Nikolai Tiritilli <
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 3:22 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Requiring Written Contact Information for Police Complaints Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Santa Ana City Council,
I am writing to propose a new city ordinance or policy to make the police complaint process more accessible and provide residents with a reliable written record.

I propose that when a Santa Ana police officer interacts with a member of the public in a situation that may result in a complaint, the officer should provide the person with an official department contact method for submitting a complaint in writing. This could be a department- managed email address rather than the officer' s personal email.

I propose that the ordinance require:

1. The department to maintain a dedicated complaint email address that is monitored regularly.

2. Officers or supervisors to provide that email address to anyone who requests information about filing a complaint.

3. The department to automatically acknowledge receipt of an emailed complaint.

4. The department to provide the complainant with a complaint or reference number.

5. The department to preserve the original email and any attached documentation as part of the complaint record.

6. The department to provide clear instructions explaining how residents can submit complaints by email, mail, online form, telephone, or in person.

The purpose of this proposal is not to interfere with police investigations. It is to ensure that residents have a simple way to submit complaints in writing and proof that their complaint was received.

I respectfully ask the City Council to refer this proposal to the appropriate city staff or City Attorney for review and to consider bringing forward an ordinance or policy implementing these requirements.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Nikolai
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Nikolai Tiritilli <
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 3:24 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Proposal for New Police Complaint Communication Policy Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Santa Ana City Council,
I am writing to propose a new law or city policy concerning complaints against Santa Ana Police Department officers.

I would like the proposed policy to require that, when a resident wants to file a complaint against a police officer, the officer or supervisor provide the resident with an official department email address where the complaint can be submitted in writing. This would allow the resident to keep a copy of the complaint and have documentation showing when it was submitted.

I would also like the new policy to require the Police Department to respond to the complainant by both email and telephone after the complaint is submitted. The email response would provide written confirmation that the complaint was received, and the telephone response would give the complainant an opportunity to discuss the complaint or ask questions about the process.

The proposed policy could require:

An official department email address to be provided when requested for filing a complaint.

Written confirmation that the complaint was received.

A complaint or reference number for the resident' s records.

A telephone call from the appropriate supervisor or investigator.

A follow- up email documenting the status or next steps of the complaint.

Clear information about who is responsible for handling the complaint and how the resident can follow up.

I believe these requirements would make the complaint process more transparent, accessible, and accountable while giving residents documentation of their complaints.

I respectfully ask the City Council to review this proposal and consider referring it to the appropriate city staff and City Attorney for consideration as a new ordinance or department policy.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Nikolai
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Nikolai Tiritilli <
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2026 5:47 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Proposal for LGBT Community Events and Inclusive Social Gatherings in Santa Ana Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear City of Santa Ana,
I am writing to propose the development and support of more LGBT- inclusive community events in Santa Ana.

Santa Ana is a diverse city, but there are limited opportunities specifically focused on bringing the LGBT community together in a welcoming, supportive, and positive environment. I believe the City could help encourage greater diversity and community connection by supporting or partnering with local organizations and community members to host LGBT social events.

One idea would be to create LGBT community gatherings such as pool parties, social mixers, outdoor events, community meetups, and other recreational activities. These events could provide an opportunity for LGBT residents to meet one another, build friendships, find community support, and feel more connected to the City of Santa Ana.

The purpose would not be to separate the LGBT community from the rest of Santa Ana, but rather to make sure LGBT residents have opportunities to come together and feel represented and included within the larger community.

I would like to see the City explore possibilities such as:

LGBTcommunity pool parties and recreational events
LGBT-friendly community gatherings and social mixers
Partnerships with local LGBT organizations and businesses Events at City parks, pools, and other public facilities Community resource and support fairs
Pride- related events and educational programs
Opportunities for LGBT residents to provide feedback directly to the City I believe creating more opportunities for community connection can help reduce isolation, encourage diversity, and strengthen relationships between residents, community organizations, and the City.

I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this idea with the appropriate City department, City Council representative, or other community representative who works on recreation, community programs, diversity, equity, inclusion, or neighborhood engagement.

I would also be interested in helping develop the idea further and hearing what requirements, permits, partnerships, or City resources would be necessary to make an LGBT community event possible in Santa Ana.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this proposal. I hope the City will consider creating more opportunities for LGBT residents to come together, build community, and feel supported and included.

Sincerely,
i
Nikolai
2 Becerra, Alexis
From: Jeff Dickman <
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2026 4:27 PM
To: Tran, Nancy
Cc: Amezcua, Valerie; Penaloza, David; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jessie; [email protected]; Bacerra, Phil; Hall, Jennifer; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Nunez, Alvaro; eComments, PBA; !City Clerk; [email protected]; hector. bustos@sausd. us; Alfonso. Alvarez@sausd. us; Brenda. Lebsack@sausd. us; Valerie. Magdaleno@sausd. us; Lorraine. Perez@sausd. us Subject: Formal Comments on One Broadway Plaza — SD- 75 Amendment— 415 to 602 Units Attachments: OBP9_12_26.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Good day Nancy,
Thank you for alerting me to the upcoming meeting for One Broadway Plaza. Attached is my comment letter for the revised project.

Please include this letter in the administrative record and forward to City staff, and City Council. I respectfully request to be added to all future notice lists for One Broadway Plaza.

Thank you,
Jeff Dickman
1 Jeffrey L. Dickman
French Park Property Owner— Advocacy for French Park, French Court, Logan, and other Neighborhoods— Former Lead Petitioner, 2005 Measure A Referendum September 12, 2026

VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL
TO: Ntran5( a santa-ana.org
CC— SantaAna City Council: Mayor Valerie Amezcua; Mayor Pro Tem David Penaloza,Ward 6; Councilmember Thai Viet Phan, Ward 1; Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez, Ward 2; Councilmember Jessie Lopez, Ward 3; Councilmember Phil Bacerra, Ward 4; Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, Ward 5.

CC— City Staff: Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk; Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney; Alvaro Nunez, City Manager; PBAecomments@santa- ana.org
CC— SAUSD Board of Education: Katelyn Brazer Aceves, President; Hector Bustos, Vice President; Alfonso Alvarez, Ed. D., Clerk; Brenda Lebsack, Member; Valerie Magdaleno, Member; and Lorraine Perez, Superintendent
CC— Community: French Park, Logan, Willard, and Downtown Neighborhood Associations; SantaAna Historical Preservation Society
Nancy Tran, Senior Planner
City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza, M- 20
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Formal Comments on One Broadway Plaza— SD- 75 Amendment— 415 to 602 Units, Reduced Office, Added Grocery— 1109 N Broadway— SCH# 1999101047— Request for Subsequent EIR— Incorporation of March 30, 2020 Opposition Letters— Sunshine Ordinance Meetings January 28, 2026 and September 17, 2026— 100 S Main St—$ 300, 000 Traffic Mitigation Fund Insufficient— Pedestrian and Child Safety Deficiencies— Financial Feasibility— SAUSD Enrollment Impact Dear Ms. Tran, Planning Commission, and City Council:

I am writing as a French Park property owner, a SantaAna stakeholder, and a former lead petitioner for the 2005 Measure A referendum. My participation in this public process concerns the 2026 project modifications now before the City and is submitted on that basis.

Pleaseacceptthis letter as formal comments on the One Broadway Plaza re-entitlement through an amendment to SD- 75. Per City website, applicant Mike Harrah/ Caribou Industries/ One Broadway Plaza LLC proposesincreasing residential from 415 to 602 units, revising unit mix, reducing minimum office below 200, 000 sq ft, permitting grocery/ retail, and modifying parking allocations. Site: 4.32 acres bounded by Washington Ave, Sycamore St, 10th St, Broadway. 37-story tower approx 493 ft roof, 8-level detached parking structure, 2,463 spaces minimum per NS- 2989. Historic structures at 1103, 1111, 1115- 17, 1211 N Broadway to remain; 1015 and 1109 N Broadway to relocate per NS- 2989.

Project Scale— Maximum Buildout: 2020 Ordinance NS- 2989 ( May 5, 2020) allows max 415 residential units, minimum 200, 000 net sq ft office per § 9d, max 80% studio/ 1- bed, min 20% 2- and 3- bed, 2 spaces/ unit+ 0. 25 guest= 934 residential spaces. Original 2004 entitlement 518, 003 sq ft office, 8,525 sq ft retail, and 18, 596 sq ft restaurant( FAR 2. 9; SCH 41999101047). Current proposal 415- 602 units 187 units, + 45%) plus grocery/ retail reduces office below the 200k floor and modifies parking. The amendmentdoesnot changethe approved site plan per City but requires a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendment to SD- 75, and additional environmental review.

Per the City' s own published project FAQ, a second Addendum to the 2004 EIR and 2020 Addendum SCH 41999101047) hasalready beenpreparedfor the current 602-unit proposal and is undergoing peer review by the City' s environmental consultant. This letter provides substantial evidence that a second Addendum is legally insufficient and that a Subsequent EIR is required— including the City' s own prior position, communicated to the applicant in connection with the 2020 approvals, that increasing the unit count beyond 415 to 600 or more would itself require a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

NOTICE TO SAUSD LEADERSHIP: You arebeing copied on this correspondencebecausethe proposed 602- unit residential conversion at 1109 N Broadway represents a significant, and to date un- analyzed, impact on local school capacity and enrollment that was entirely absentfrom the 2004 commercial- office EIR.

Organization to Preserve Administrative Record:

Part I— New Comments on the 602- Unit Revision. For each significant, unavoidable impact category, this letter identifies: ( a) the mitigation the City/Applicant has proposedto date; (b) numbered, itemized deficiencies in that mitigation(" Shortfall Nos. X. 1, X. 2..."); and( c) numbered demands (" Demand Nos.

X. 1, X. 2...") requested in addition to— not in substitution for— the mitigation already on the record. A separate written response under Guidelines § 15088 is requested for each numbered item.

Part II— Addendum— Failure to Respond to March 30, 2020 Opposition Comments ( Dickman, Moerer, Leon, Chavez, Salas, Flores): Lists issuesseparately, distinct from Part L I incorporate the March 30, 2020 comments by reference in full and demand a written response per Guidelines § 15088.

Part III— Additional Issues: 61. 4% Conversion Limit Violation, Inclusionary Housing, Sunshine Ordinance Two- Meeting Requirement, Indemnification, and Pedestrian/Child Safety. Financial feasibility Section VII) and SAUSD school- enrollment impacts ( Section VIII) are addressed as their own significant- impact categories within Part I.

Part IV— Conclusion and Staff Action Required: a consolidated checklist for City staff, collecting the demands above into a single reference.

Each Part is separate and distinct.

I. Transportation/ Traffic/ VMT/ Pedestrian Safety/ Safe Routes to School— Significant and Unavoidable, Cumulative ( 3. 5)
Summary: The 2004 EIR relied on a 2002 traffic study, now 24 years old; no new study was prepared for the 2020 415-unit approval, andnone has beenprepared for the current 602-unit- plus-grocery proposal.

Over the years the City has installed a handful of traffic- calming measures in French Park— ADA curb ramps, a beaconwith pedestrian lighting, a pedestrian signal at French Streetand Civic Center, several roundabouts, and two temporary speed bumps on Washington Avenue. These were paid for publicly, piecemeal, over many years— not funded by the Applicant or conditioned on this project. Despite them, the core problem remains entirely unaddressed: there are still no diverters anywhere in French Park, or the other impacted neighborhoods, and nothing currently in place precludes cut-through traffic from using the neighborhood' s streets. The measures that exist slow drivers down; they do not keep them out. Adding 602 units plus a grocery store without a real, funded, Applicant- paid traffic- calming plan will make that unresolved problem worse, not better. The $ 300, 000- per- neighborhood fund adopted in 2020 appears sized for a paper study, not for physical construction— comparable multi- intersection traffic- calming work typically runs well into six or seven figures per neighborhood in current dollars— and the City should not let the Applicant externalize that cost onto the public again. Opponents called this pattern a gift of public funds' during prior fights over this project, and nothing about the current 602- unit proposal changes that assessment— particularly for a City that just dissolved five resident commissions to close a 13 million budget gap.

Existing mitigation claimed by City/ Applicant— insufficient standing alone:

These are conditions of approval and mitigation measures already on the books— not new proposals from the current application— drawn from the 2004 EIR( MM T- 24/ T- 25) and the 2020 NS- 2989 approval that allowed the original 415 units (§ 6, § 7, § 7m, park fees, PLA). As the Summary above notes, only a few have been verified asactually built; most of the items below remain unverified ascomplete, and none were analyzed against the 602- unit, grocery- added proposal now before the City: MM T- 24/ T- 25 requires traffic diverters in French Park to be made permanent— westbound Washington diverted at Main, eastbound 10th diverted at Main. NS- 2989 § 6 requires a raised center median on Main, a two- way 18-ft drop-off zone at 920 N Main for OCHSA, a hedgeplus 36-in fence, restriping Main to 3 NB/ 2 SB, a raisedmedian barrier with decorative pavement replacing the painted No AccessZone on loth, signal modifications at Main/ Washington, Main/ loth, Washington/ Sycamore, Broadway/ Washington, and Broadway/ loth per § 61, and a raised median at the Broadway egress. § 7 requires a roundabout/ water feature; § 7m requires pedestrian- scale lighting at 16-22 ft. Separate conditions require park feesto be spent within the district and a project labor agreementper §F.

Shortfall and harm— why the existing mitigation is insufficient standing alone:

1. 1 — EIR over 16years old: the March 30, 2020 opposition record( Moerer) noted the EIR was approved over 16years ago and is outdated; only minor changeswere made describing conversion of 19 floors of office to apartments,with no new traffic studies accounting for numerous other apartment projects under development nearby.

1. 2— No current TIA: no Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the 2020 415-unit revision, and none has been prepared for the 602- unit plus grocery revision now proposed; the 2004 EIR relied on a 2002 traffic study.

1. 3 —$ 300, 000 traffic fund likely insufficient: the $ 300, 000- per- neighborhood fund adopted in 2020 appearssizedto fund a paper study, not physical construction. Full construction of comparable multi- intersection traffic- calming programs— medians, diverters, signalized crosswalks, beacons— typically runs well into six or sevenfigures per neighborhood in current California dollars; the City should require a qualified engineer's cost estimatebefore treating 300, 000 as adequate.

1. 4— No VMT analysis hasbeenperformed per SB 743 / Guidelines §15064.3(b); no enforceable VMT budget or off- site mitigation bank exists.

1. 5 — No cumulative- impacts list includes nearby projects such as 3rd & Broadway Promenade and 625 N Grand.

1. 6— No analysis of grocery-related traffic: no weekend PM-peak grocery trip generation, no delivery- van cut- through analysis into French Park, no trash- truck routing analysis.

1. 7— No high- visibility crosswalks currently exist at the five affected signalized intersections Main/ Washington, Main/ lOth, Washington/ Sycamore, Broadway/Washington, Broadway/ loth).

1. 8— ADA curb ramps exist throughout French Park, as noted above, but truncated domes specifically have not beenverified as installed, and ramp compliance at the five intersections most affected by this project has not been confirmed.

1. 9— None of the following exist at the five intersections most affected by this project, beyond the beacon and the two pedestrian signals noted above: additional RRFBs, a HAWK signal, Leading PedestrianInterval ( LPI) timing, or curb extensions/bulb-outs.

1. 10— No verification that the pedestrian- scale lighting required at 16-22 ft per § 7m has been installed and is maintained at the required illumination level.

1. 11 — The OCHSA studentdrop-off at 920 N Main required by §6aj ( raised median, two- way lanes,hedgeand fence) hasnot been verified asbuilt, and now standsto conflict with grocery- truck ingress on Sycamore.

1. 12— No Safe Routes to School analysis for OCHSA, no Vision Zero analysis, and no CEQA analysis of environmentaljustice impacts on the Logan, Lacy, and French Park communities consistent with the state's environmental justice policy framework under SB 1000) have been prepared.

1. 13 — No evidence has been provided that the diverters required at Washington/ Main and 1Oth/Main under MM T-24/T-25 have in fact beenmade permanent.

1. 14— Harm: existing residents face permanent traffic intrusion, pedestrian- safety risk, sleep disruption, and constrained emergency-evacuation routes on single-accessstreets; future 602-unit residents face long commutes and pedestrianconflicts at Main/ lOth near the OCHSA drop-off.

Demand— requested in addition to, not in substitution for, all existing mitigation described above; a separate written response under Guidelines § 15088 is requested for each item:

1. 0— Retain all existing mitigation. Retain, enforce, and verify completion of all existing mitigation( T- 24/ T- 25, § 6a- 1, § 7, § 7m, park fees,PLA).

LA— Study first. Require a full TIA plus VMT analysis per SB 743 and a pedestrian-safety study— including pedestrian/bicycle/child counts, an ADA audit, weekend grocery PM-peak analysis, and delivery/ trash routing— before any mitigation plan is finalized, per Guidelines 15126. 4.

LB— Plan from the study. Require a Master Traffic Mitigation and Calming Plan, developed from that study, with written satisfaction of the City and all six affected neighborhoods Downtown, Logan, Lacy, French Court, Willard, French Park), per the Dickman proposal.

1. 0— Fund and escrow. Require a qualified engineer' s construction cost estimate and a funded developer escrow sizedto that estimate, not the current$ 300,000 paper-study figure.

1. D— Continental crosswalks. High- visibility, continental ladder- style crosswalks at all five affected signalized intersections.

LE— ADA ramps. ADA- compliant curb ramps with truncated domes at all corners within 500 ft of the site.

1. F— Beacons and signal timing. RRFBs at Broadway/ lOth and Main/ lOth, a HAWK signal where warranted, and Leading Pedestrian Interval timing at all five intersections.

1. G— Traffic calming. Raisedcrosswalks or speedtables on 1Oth/Washington, curb extensions, and traffic circles or chicanes as warranted by the traffic study.

LH— Lighting verified. Independent verification that pedestrian- scale lighting at 16-22 ft, one foot-candle from dusk to dawn per §7m, is installed and maintained.

1. I— Safe Routes to School. Verification of the Safe Routes elements at the OCHSA drop- off two- way lanes,hedgeand fence per §6c, wheelchair ramps per §6k.

1. J— Built before occupancy. Require all mitigation in 1.0 and 1.D- 1.I to be built, finaled, and operational before issuanceof any certificate of occupancy.

LK— Recirculate. Recirculate a Subsequent EIR incorporating the new TIA, VMT analysis, andpedestrian-safety study; no Addendum.

IL Noise— Construction and Operational— Significant and Unavoidable ( 3. 7) Summary: As a French Park resident of 28 years, I can speak to the neighborhood directly: French Park already carries substantial vehicle andtruck traffic off the freeway and down Washington Avenue, our northern boundary— commuters, delivery trucks, construction trucks, semi tractor- trailer rigs, ambulances, and fire trucks all useWashington, Main, and Broadway to reach downtown. French Court, just north of Washington, absorbs some of that same cut- through traffic. The existing mitigation requires mufflers and limited work hours, but setsno measurable, enforceablenoise limit at nearby residences, provides no real- time monitoring, and does not address the added truck traffic 602 units plus a grocery store and a 2,463-spacegaragewill bring to streetsthat are already loud.

Existing mitigation claimed by City/ Applicant— insufficient standing alone:

The existing mitigation measures,N0I- 1through N0I- 5, require mufflers and maintained equipment, Tier 4 engines, construction hours restricted to 7am- 6pm on weekdays and 8am- 5pm on Saturdays, temporary barriers, advancenotification to residentswithin 1,000 ft, soundblankets, vibration monitoring, and sound walls or setbacks where feasible.

Shortfall and harm— why the existing mitigation is insufficient standing alone:

2. 1 — A Programmatic Addendum cannot ensure sound barriers are placed at every residence within 500 ft across the 4. 32- acre site.

2. 2— No enforceable construction noise budget and no real- time monitoring requirement exist.

2. 3 — No funded off- site sound walls areprovided for homeswithin 500 ft.

2. 4— No hourly noise threshold( e.g., 75 dBA) is set for French Park, and no 55- 60 dB threshold at 50 ft is set consistentwith CDFW guidance for sensitive receptors.

2. 5 — No analysis addresses grocery loading- dock backup beepers or 24- hour refrigeration- unit noise.

2. 6— Placing 602 residential units in this construction/ operational noise environment is inconsistent with the General Plan Noise Element; a Title 24 interior 45 dB analysis was never performed in the 2004 office- only EIR.

Demand— requested in addition to, not in substitution for, existing mitigation:

2. 0— Retain all existing mitigation. Retain N0I- 1through N0I- 5.

2. A— Noise budget. Adopt an enforceable construction and operational noise budget with real- time monitoring.
0 2. B— Off- site walls. Fund off- site sound walls for homes within 500 ft.

2. 0— Thresholds. Set a 55- 60 dB threshold at 50 ft per CDFW guidance and a 75 dBA hourly threshold at French Park.

2. 1)— Title 24 analysis. Require a Title 24 interior 45 dB analysis at the CEQA review stage, given the shift to residential sensitive receptors,with final compliance confirmed asusual at building permit issuance.

2. E— Recirculate. Recirculate a Subsequent EIR.

III. Health and Safety— Air Quality— Significant and Unavoidable ( 3. 2) Existing mitigation claimed by City/ Applicant— insufficient standing alone:

The existing mitigation measures,AQ- 1through AQ- 11,require SCAQMD Rule 403 dust control, Tier 4 construction equipment, a no-idling policy, site watering, low- VOC materials, energy-efficiency measures, and a transportation demandmanagementprogram. Separately,NS-2989 §6 requires a hedge and fence directing OCHSA studentstoward the Main Streetand Sycamore Street sidewalks.

Shortfall and harm— why the existing mitigation is insufficient standing alone:

3. 1 — No enforceable emissions budget and no cap on concurrent grading across the 4.32- acre site.

3. 2— No Health Risk Assessment addresses grocery- truck idling within 1,000 ft of homes and the school.

3. 3 — No off- site mitigation is provided for sensitive receptors.

3. 4— No analysis of truck routing through Lacy, Logan, or French Court.

3. 5 — Pedestriansafety improvements at Broadway/Washington, Broadway/ loth, Main/ Washington, and Main/ loth required under § 61 have never been verified complete.

3. 6— No CEQA analysis of environmentaljustice impacts (consistent with the state's environmental justice policy framework under SB 1000) addresses the Logan, Lacy, French Court and French Park communities, where children face both diesel exposure and the absence of striped crossings.

Demand— requested in addition to, not in substitution for, existing mitigation:

3. 0— Retain all existing mitigation. Retain AQ- 1through AQ- I I andthe hedge/fence required under § 6.

3. A— Health Risk Assessment. Require an HRA per SCAQMD methodology for grocery-truck idling within 1,000 ft.

3. 13— Emissions budget. Adopt an enforceable construction emissions budget and a cap on concurrent grading.

IC— Off- site mitigation. Provide off- site mitigation for sensitive receptors.

3. 1)— Pedestrian safety verified. Fund and verify pedestrian safety improvements per §61, including continental crosswalks and RRFBs.
0 3. E— Recirculate. Recirculate a Subsequent EIR.

IV. Cultural/ Historic Preservation— Significant and Unavoidable ( 3. 3) Summary: This section addresseshistoric preservation and visual impacts on the French Park Historic District, whose turn-of-the-century homes,numerous condominiums and apartments sit adjacentto the tower site. The existing conditions require renovation of four historic structuresand relocation of two others. But there is no updatedhistoric assessmentfor the larger 602-unit intensity, no shadow study showing where the 493- foot tower will fall across the district in winter, and no lighting plan. The 2020 Addendum already admitted the project would shift the area'svisual characterfrom low- density to intensified urban; the current proposal makes that shift 45% more intense.

Existing mitigation claimed by City/ Applicant— insufficient standing alone:

The existing mitigation measures, CUL- 1through CUL- 8, require a records search, a PhaseI survey, archaeological monitoring during construction, an inadvertent-discovery protocol, and a treatment plan.

Separately,NS-2989 §4 requires renovation of the four historic structures at 1103, 1111, 1115-17,and 1211N Broadway; relocation of the structures at 1015and 1109N Broadway to a permanent foundation with utility service; and, for the tower itself, blueish non- reflective glass, a visible structural system, and an arcade-and-skirt transition at streetlevel per §4e.

Shortfall and harm— why the existing mitigation is insufficient standing alone:

4. 1 — No updated Historic Resources Assessment has been prepared for the 602- unit intensity.

4. 2— No shadow analysis addressesthe French Park residencesstanding in the tower's shadow; a winter- solstice shadow study hasnot been performed.

4. 3 — No photometric plan has been prepared— no lumens cap, no 3,000K fully- shielded fixture standard consistent with International Dark- Sky Association guidance— leaving light/ glare impacts unanalyzed.

4. 4— The 2020 Addendum already admitted a visual-character shift from low- density to intensified urban character; the current proposal intensifies that shift by a further 45%.

4. 5 — No formal agreementexists with the SantaAna Historical Preservation Society, and no avoidance- first mitigation hierarchy has been adopted.

4. 6— The City' s independent capacity to evaluate cultural- resourceimpacts has diminished since the project' s original approval: the City ended neighborhood historic reviews for Historic French Park andHistoric Heninger Park roughly a year ago, andthe Historic ResourcesCommission itself was sunseton June 30, 2026, when the City Council voted to dissolve five resident commissions to addressa budget deficit, with its duties reassignedto the Planning Commission removing a layer of independent, subject-matter-expert review that existed when this project was first evaluated.

Demand— requested in addition to, not in substitution for, existing mitigation:

4. 0— Retain all existing mitigation. Retain CUL- 1through CUL- 8, renovation of the four structures, relocation of the two structures with foundation/ utilities, and the § 4e design standards.

4. A— Historic assessment. Require an updated Historic Resources Assessment for the 602- unit intensity.

4. 13— Shadow study. Require a winter- solstice shadow analysis on the French Park Historic District.

4. 0— Photometric plan. Require a photometric plan with an enforceable lumens cap and a 3, 000K fully- shielded fixture standard.

4. 1)— Avoidance- first. Adopt an avoidance- first mitigation hierarchy and a formal agreement with the Historical Society.

4. E— Recirculate. Recirculate a Subsequent EIR.

4. F— Independent historic review. Given the sunset of the Historic Resources Commission, require the Subsequent EIR' s cultural- resources analysis to be reviewed by a qualified independenthistoric preservation consultant retained by the City, not solely by Applicant- retained consultants.

V. Land Use and Planning— 61. 4% Conversion Limit Violation— SD- 75 Standards ( 3. 10) Existing mitigation claimed by City/ Applicant— insufficient standing alone:

The original 2004 entitlement was for 518,003 sq ft of office spaceonly ( FAR 2.9). NS-2989 §9d then set the current rule: a minimum of 200,000 net sq ft of office must be retained, with the remainder available for residential— meaning 38. 6% office must stay in place ( 200, 000- 518, 003 = 38. 6%), and a maximum of 61. 4% may convert to residential, capped at 415 units, with a mix of no more than 80% studio/ 1- bedroom and at least 20% 2-3 bedroom units, and a 500 sq ft minimum unit size.NS-2989 §5 setsa parking minimum of 2,463 spaces, broken down as: 600 office, 934 residential ( 830 resident plus 104 guest), 50 retail, 180 restaurant, 29 existing office, 29 existing restaurant, 30 Sycamore, 100Main, 110at 1200 N Main, 12 at I I I I N Broadway, and 389 other. NS- 2989 § 4c sets a height limit of approximately 493 ft, which is not modifiable. Separate2020 Planning Commission conditions require park feesto be spent within the district, a project labor agreement per§ F, and an inclusionary in- lieu fee of$ 15/sq ft per G— a rate that expired April 21, 2020.

Shortfall and harm— why the existing mitigation is insufficient standing alone:

5. 1 — The amendment exceeds the 2020 cap by 187 units (+ 45%) and reduces office below the 200, 000 sq ft floor, violating § 9d and the outcome of the 2005 Measure A referendum, in which SantaAna voters rejected a petition to overturn Ordinance NS-2649's rezoning from SP-3 to SD- 75 — upholding that rezoning at the ballot.

5. 2— This is a secondconversion on top of the first( 19floors of office converted to residential in 2020, now an additional 187 units plus a new grocery use) and requires major EIR revision rather than sequential,piecemealedapprovals.

5. 3 — Zero affordable units are proposed;the $4.77M in-lieu fee is offered at the 2020 rate of 15/sq ft per§ G, which expired April 21, 2020. For 602 units, on-site affordable housing is required under the Housing Element.

5. 4— The proposal disregards the 2020 Planning Commission condition requiring park fees to be spent within the district.

5. 5 — The proposal is inconsistent with the Midtown Specific Plan' s stated intent of a professional office district.

Demand— requested in addition to, not in substitution for, existing mitigation:

5. 0— Retain all existing mitigation. Retain the 200, 000 sq ft office minimum per§ 9d, the 415- unit cap,the 80/20 unit mix, the 500 sq ft minimum unit size,the 2,463-spaceparking minimum per§ 5, the height limit per§ 4c, park fees spent within the district, and the project labor agreement per§ F.

5. A— Deny or require an EIR. Deny the amendment unless a Subsequent EIR demonstrates consistencywith § 9d.

5. 13— Enforce the 61. 4% cap. Enforce the 61. 4% maximum conversion limit; the 602- unit count combined with sub-200k office andthe grocery use exceedsit.

5. 0— 15% on- site affordable housing. Require on- site affordable housing of a minimum 15% per the Housing Element and Government Code §65583.

5. 1)— Verify park fees. Verify park fees are spent within the district per the 2020 Planning Commission condition.

5. E— Verify PLA. Verify the project labor agreement required under § F.

5. F— Recirculate. Recirculate a Subsequent EIR.

VI. CEQA Procedural— Addendum vs. Subsequent EIR— Sunshine Ordinance— Indemnification— Case Law
Existing mitigation claimed by City/ Applicant— insufficient standing alone:

The 2020 City Council found the Addendum reflected the City' s independentjudgment and that none of the conditions in Public Resources Code § 21166/ Guidelines § 15162 requiring subsequent review had occurred. Per the City' s published project FAQ, a secondAddendum relying on the 2004 EIR and 2020 Addendum has now been prepared for the current 602- unit proposal and is undergoing peer review by the City' s environmental consultant to evaluatewhether that analysis remains adequateunder CEQA.

NS- 2989 § 3 requires the Applicant to indemnify, protect, and defend the City and hold it harmless from claims under the Brown Act, CEQA, and Planning and Zoning Law. NS-2989 §G requires a recorded Mutual Declaration of Acknowledgment. A secondSunshine Ordinance meeting has since been noticed for September 17, 2026, 6:00 p.m., at 100 S Main St and via Zoom; per City staff, no public hearing has yet been officially scheduled, and formal comments on any such hearing will be invited separatelyonce one is set.

Shortfall and harm— why the existing mitigation is insufficient standing alone:

6. 1 — No substantial evidence supports the Addendum. Under Public Resources Code § 21166 and Guidelines § 15164, an Addendum is authorized only where the agency' s determination that none of the § 15162 triggers apply is supported by substantial evidence in the whole record— a standardthe Guidelines' own referencenotes trace to Bowman v. City of Petaluma ( 1986) 185 Cal.App. 3d 1065 andBenton v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 226 Cal.App. 3d 1467.

6. 2— No special deferenceapplies. The California SupremeCourt in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. ( 2016) 1 Cal. 5th 937, 951- 953, confirmed that this substantial-evidence standardgoverns regardlessof how the agency characterizes the project modification, and that the agency' s threshold determination receives no special deference beyond that standard.

6. 3 — No current studies exist to support the Addendum. Absent a current traffic, noise, air- quality, or historic- resourcesstudy addressingthe 602-unit and grocery revision, the City lacks the substantial evidence necessary to support an Addendum finding under Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego ( 2018) 28 Cal. App. 5th 656— a case in which the court upheld an addendum because the agency' s determination there was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Here, by contrast, no comparable traffic, noise, air- quality, or historic- resources studies exist for the 602- unit revision, so that same substantial- evidence standard is not met, and a Subsequent EIR is required.

6. 4— The § 15162 triggers are met: under§ 15162( a)( 1)-( 3), a Subsequent EIR is required where substantial changes propose new significant effects or a substantial increase in severity— here, a 45% unit increase, grocery truck traffic, a shift to residential sensitive receptors, historic shadow impacts, unanalyzed VMT, and unaddressedpedestrian/child safety collectively meet that standard.

6. 5 — The Addendum process is improper here. Guidelines § 15164permits an Addendum only where some changes are necessary but none of the § 15162 conditions have occurred; those conditions have occurred. The City cannot piecemeal the grocery useas a separatecommercial approval.

6. 6— Failure to respond to the March 30, 2020 comments violates Guidelines § 15088.

6. 7— The SunshineOrdinance requirestwo community meetings before a Planning Commission hearing. The first was held January 28, 2026 at Beale' s Texas BBQ, 100 S Main St, both in person and virtually. The secondis noticed for September 17, 2026, 6:00 p.m., at the same 100 S Main St location and via Zoom— evening hours and a virtual option, consistent with the first meeting— but the meeting remains at the samecentral location rather than within French Park itself, and no City Council or Planning Commission hearing date has yet been set.

6. 8— The indemnification escrow required by NS-2989 §3 hasnot been funded.

6. 9— Proposing mitigation before the underlying study is complete is inconsistent with Guidelines §15126.4(a)(1)(B), which requires enforceable performance standards.

6. 10— The secondAddendum now in peer review relies on the 2004 EIR and 2020 Addendum rather than new, project- specific analysis of the 602- unit and grocery revision— the same deficiency Shortfalls 1.1through 5.5 above document in detail. A peer-review processconfined to the adequacy of an Addendum cannot substitute for the Subsequent EIR process required once the 15162 triggers are met.

Demand— requested in addition to, not in substitution for, existing mitigation:

6. 0— Retain all existing procedural protections. Retain the indemnification requirement per 3 andthe Mutual Declaration per§ G.

6. A— Subsequent EIR. Require a Subsequent EIR per § 15162; no Addendum per § 15164, given the lack of substantial evidence discussedabove.

6. 13— Recirculation. Require recirculation per § 15088. 5.

6. 0— Written response. Require a written responseto all March 30, 2020 comments per 15088— Dickman, Moerer, Leon, Chavez, Salas, and Flores.

6. 1)— Direct neighborhood notice. The secondSunshinemeeting is noticed for September 17, 2026, 6:00 p.m., at 100 S Main St and via Zoom, in evening hours with a virtual option as requested. Provide advancenotice of the meeting directly to the French Park, French Court, Willard, Logan, Lacy, and Downtown neighborhood associations, and hold a future meeting within French Park itself.

6. E— Overriding considerations. If the City claims a significant, unavoidable traffic impact at Fairview/ 1st remains, require a new Statement of Overriding Considerations consistent with the 2004 precedent.

6. F— Escrow funded. Require a recorded Mutual Declaration with a funded indemnification escrow per§ G before any permits are issued.

6. G— Study first. No mitigation before study: require the study first per § 15126. 4, then a plan, then a funded construction escrow, then construction verified complete before occupancy.

VII. Financial Feasibility and Performance Bond— Public Protection Against Blight Note: this section is a land-use and discretionary-approval-conditions argument, made under the City' s police power and its authority over the terms of any approval, rather than a CEQA environmental-impact category. It is properly raised in this letter as an additional, non- CEQA basis for the City to condition or deny the requestedamendment.

Existing mitigation claimed by City/ Applicant— insufficient standing alone:

None. The City has not, to date, conditioned this entitlement on any audit of the project' s fiscal history or on any performance bond or completion guarantee.

Shortfall and harm— why the absence of financial due diligence is a deficiency:

7. 1 — The site at 1109N Broadway has sat stagnantfor over 22 years. This history of delay warrants a formal review of the project' s fiscal viability before any further entitlement is granted.

7. 2— No audit has been conducted of historical records— including former Planning Manager Vince Fregoso' s logs regarding past lender inquiries— to verify that construction capital is securedspecifically for this site.

7. 3 — No performance bond or comparable completion guarantee is currently required to ensure the developer possessesthe verified, liquid capital necessaryto reach completion, leaving the City andneighborhood exposedto another two decadesof blight if the project again stalls after approval.

Demand— requested in addition to, not in substitution for, existing conditions:

7. A— Fiscal history audit. Require a formal audit of the project' s fiscal history, including records of past lender inquiries, before granting new entitlements.

7. 13— Performance bond. Condition any approval on a performance bond or comparable completion guaranteesized to the full cost of construction, to protect the public from further blight if the project again stalls.

VIIL SAUSD School Enrollment and Parkland Capacity— Un- Analyzed Impact Existing mitigation claimed by City/ Applicant— insufficient standing alone:

None specific to school enrollment. The 2004 EIR analyzedthe site as commercial office useonly; it contains no school- enrollment or parkland- capacity analysis, because none was needed for an office building.

Shortfall and harm— why the absence of a school and parkland analysis is a deficiency:

8. 1 — Unlike office space, 602 apartmentswill place an immediate, permanent demand on SAUSD enrollment that the 2004 EIR never contemplated.

8. 2— The project will place an immediate, permanent demandon local parkland capacity, particularly French Park, which the 2004 EIR likewise never analyzed for a residential population of this size.

8. 3 — No analysis hasbeenperformed of the statutory school-impact feesthat would apply under Government Code § 65995, nor confirmation of whether those fees, as calculated for a 602- unit residential project, arebeing collected.

Demand— requested in addition to, not in substitution for, existing conditions:

8. A— School enrollment analysis. Require a specific analysis of the project' s impact on SAUSD enrollment and capacity aspart of the SubsequentEIR requestedabove.

8. 13— Parkland capacity analysis. Require a specific analysis of the project' s impact on French Park and other local parkland capacity.

8. 0— Confirm statutory fees. Confirm that statutory school- impact fees under Government Code § 65995 are calculated and will be collected for the full 602- unit residential scale, and disclose that calculation for the administrative record.

PART II— INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF MARCH 30, 2020 OPPOSITION—

SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
Per Guidelines § 15088 and § 15088. 5, I incorporate by reference my March 30, 2020 letter( Jeff Dickman) and all correspondenceattachedto Planning Commission Agenda Item 45, One Broadway Plaza, March 30, 2020/ April 2, 2020: Ann Moerer read- aloud request( 194- word), Tish Leon, Venancio Chavez ( Vice President, French Park Plaza, 52 families— more traffic, degradedhealth and safety, demandfor traffic and security studies), Diana Salas, and Dora Flores. All statedthat One Broadway Plazawill createover 3,000 additional vehicle trips negatively impacting Downtown, Lacy, Logan, French Court, Willard and French Park neighborhoods; will degradehealth, safety, and quality of life for thousandsof SantaAna residents; that traffic already has a stranglehold that will only worsen; that the project will construct over 500,000 sq ft of new developed spacewith zero neighborhood-specific traffic mitigations; and demanded a Master Traffic Mitigation and Calming Plan with written satisfaction of the City and neighborhoods per the Dickman proposal, including planning, design, and construction of all physical improvements. These comments remain unmitigated and are retained in full, together with the additional 2026 comments above.

I demand a written response to each.

PART III— ADDITIONAL ISSUES
The issues below cut across the impact categories addressed in Part I above and are collected here for convenience. Each remains separate and distinct, and each numbered item still requires its own written response under Guidelines § 15088.

Shortfall and harm:

9. 1 — Conversion limit: see Shortfall 5. 1 and Demand 5. 13 above; restated here as a distinct procedural violation of§ 9d' s 61. 4% cap.

9. 2— Inclusionary housing fee: seeShortfall 5.3 and Demand 5.0 above; restatedhere as a distinct statutory deficiency under Government Code § 65583.

9. 3 — Sunshine Ordinance: see Shortfall 6. 7 and Demand 6. 1) above; restated here as a distinct procedural requirement independent of the CEQA process.

9. 4— Indemnification: see Shortfall 6. 8 and Demand 6. 17 above; restated here as a distinct contractual requirement under NS- 2989 §§ 3 and G.

9. 5 — Overriding considerations: see Demand 6.E above; restated here as a distinct requirement if the City maintains a significant, unavoidable traffic impact at Fairview/ 1st.

9. 6— Children and pedestrian safety: see Shortfalls 1.7 through 1.13 and Demands LD through

1.I above; restatedhere becauseit also implicates the CEQA environmentaljustice analysis discussed at Shortfall 1. 12.

Demand:

9. 0— Retain all existing conditions. Retain the 61. 4% conversion cap, inclusionary housing condition, Sunshine Ordinance obligations, and indemnification conditions under NS- 2989.

9. A— Enforce the conversion limit. Enforce the 61. 4% maximum conversion cap; the current proposal exceedsit and requires a SubsequentEIR.

9. 13— 15% on-site affordable housing. Require on-site affordable housing of a minimum 15% per the Housing Element and Government Code §65583.

9. 0— Direct neighborhood notice. Give direct advance notice of the September 17, 2026 meeting to the affected neighborhood associations, and hold a future meeting within French Park itself.

9. 1)— Record indemnification. Record the Mutual Declaration per§ G and fund the escrow required by § 3 before any permits are issued.

9. E— Overriding statement. If a significant, unavoidable traffic impact at Fairview/ 1st remains, require a new Statement of Overriding Considerations.

9. F— Children and pedestrian safety. Require SafeRoutes to School analysis for OCHSA, continental crosswalks, ADA ramps, RRFB/ HAWK signals, raised crosswalks, bulb- outs, pedestrian lighting per §7m, a Vision Zero analysis, and a CEQA environmentaljustice analysis consistentwith the state's SB 1000policy framework.

PART IV— CONCLUSION AND STAFF ACTION REQUIRED
Summary: Eachnumbered Shortfall( 1.1-6.10, 7.1-7.3, 8.1-8.3, 9.1-9.6) and Demand( 1.0-6.G, 7.A- 7.13,

8. A- 8. C, 9. 0- 9. 17) above requires a separate written response under Guidelines § 15088. ( Note: Section IV' s cultural/historic shortfalls are numbered 4.1-4.6 and its demands4.0-4.F.) Existing mitigation identified in each section remains on the record and must be verified as constructed; the additional measuresrequestedare cumulative to, not a substitute for, that existing mitigation. The City should not approve this project by Addendum. A Subsequent EIR under Guidelines § 15162, recirculated under 15088.5, is required, incorporating the caselaw discussedin Section VI( Bowman v. City ofPetaluma 1986) 185 Ca1.App. 3d 1065;Benton v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 226 Ca1.App.3d 1467;Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. ( 2016) 1 Cal. 5th 937; SaveOur Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego ( 2018) 28 Ca1.App.5th 656).

PartsI through III above identify, for each significant impact category, the mitigation the City or Applicant has proposed, numbered shortfalls explaining why that mitigation is insufficient standing alone, and numbered demands requesting additional, enforceable mitigation in addition to— never in substitution for— the mitigation already on the record. This Part IV collects those into a single checklist for City staff, to help ensurea complete administrative record and a written responseunder Guidelines 15088 to each numbered item. Failure to respond to any numbered shortfall or demand may constitute a failure to proceed asrequired by law and support the casefor recirculation under §15088.5.

Include the record. Include this letter, all attachments, and all cited caselaw ( Bowman v. City of Petaluma( 1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 1065; Benton v. Board of Supervisors ( 1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467; Friends of the College of SanMateo Gardensv. SanMateo County Community College Dist. ( 2016) 1 Cal. 5th 937; Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego ( 2018) 28 Cal.App. 5th 656) in the administrative record for SCH 41999101047 and any subsequentSCH number issued for the 415- to- 602- unit revision.

Retain existing mitigation. Verify completion of all existing mitigation identified in SectionsI through VI above— T- 24/ T- 25 diverters, NS- 2989 §§ 6a-1, 7, 7m, park fees, PLA, NOI- 1-5, AQ- 1-11, CUL- 1-8,the 200,000 sq ft office floor and 415-unit cap per §9d, the 2,463-space parking minimum per§ 5, the height limit per§ 4c, indemnification per §3, and the Mutual Declaration per §G.

Study first, then plan, then fund, then build. Require the TIA, VMT, and pedestrian-safety study before finalizing a mitigation plan; require a Master Traffic Mitigation and Calming Plan built from that study; require a qualified engineer's construction cost estimateand a funded escrow sized to it; require all mitigation built, finaled, and operational before any certificate of occupancy.

Do not approve by Addendum. The second Addendum currently in peer review should not substitute for a SubsequentEIR. Recirculate a SubsequentEIR incorporating new traffic, VMT, pedestrian- safety, noise, air- quality, historic, shadow, photometric, financial- feasibility, and SAUSD/parkland analysesbefore any Planning Commission hearing.

Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey L. Dickman
On behalf of the Downtown, Logan, Lacy, French Court, Willard, and French Park neighborhoods Becerra, Alexis
From: Luis Perez <
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 7:47 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Support Single Sided Permit Parking
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear City of Santa Ana,
I am respectfully asking for your support and attention regarding an increasingly difficult parking and safety situation affecting my family and our neighborhood.

Our home is uniquely situated as the only house surrounded by apartment buildings, and we do not have a driveway or any private off- street parking. This makes access to safe and reasonable street parking especially important for my family. We have a 72-year- old mother- in- law in our household, as well as my wife and our four children. Finding a safe place to park has become increasingly difficult, and the situation continues to get worse.

We understand that parking is limited and that many residents depend on street parking. However, the situation has become particularly challenging because some households on Chestnut and Broadway have what appears to be an unusually high number of vehicles — in some cases, three, five, and even as many as ten vehicles — competing for the same limited street parking.

More importantly, we have observed vehicles remaining parked in the same location for extended periods, including vehicles that appear to remain stationary for more than 72 consecutive hours, apparently to hold or " save" parking spaces.

The City of Santa Ana already has an ordinance addressing this exact issue. Santa Ana Municipal Code § 36- 136( b), titled Parking over seventy- two hours," provides:

No person who owns or has custody or control of any vehicle shall park or store such vehicle upon any street or alley for more than a consecutive period of seventy- two ( 72) hours.")) The same subsection further provides that the Chief of Police is authorized to remove a vehicle from the roadway if it is parked or stored in violation of this subsection.

We respectfully ask that this existing ordinance be consistently enforced in our neighborhood. We are not asking the City to create a new rule; we are asking for enforcement of a rule that already exists.

At the same time, we ask the City to consider a more balanced long- term solution: single- sided residential permit parking on streets where parking demand clearly exceeds the available spaces.

We understand that some neighboring residents may not support permit parking because it may not directly benefit them. However, the purpose of City policy should be to evaluate the needs and safety of the entire community, particularly households that have no driveway or private parking whatsoever.

We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for a reasonable solution to an increasingly difficult situation that disproportionately affects households like ours that have no driveway or private off- street parking. 1 Perhaps this is where we need to start. If parking demand continues to increase throughout Santa Ana, the City will need practical solutions that balance residents' needs, enforce existing regulations, and prevent public streets from effectively becoming privately" reserved" spaces.

I respectfully ask the City to:

1. Consistently enforce Santa Ana Municipal Code § 36- 136( b) regarding vehicles parked or stored on a street or alley for more than 72 consecutive hours.

2. Evaluate our specific neighborhood for single- sided residential permit parking.

3. Consider the unique circumstances of homes without driveways or private parking.

4. Review the parking demand created by surrounding apartment properties and the number of vehicles competing for limited residential street parking.

5. Work with residents to identify a fair, safe, and sustainable parking solution.

We are hard- working, tax- paying residents who want to remain part of and contribute positively to the Santa Ana community. We simply want our family— including an elderly member and four children — to have a reasonable opportunity to park safely near our home.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns and for considering this request. I sincerely hope the City will look at this issue not simply as a parking inconvenience, but as a matter of neighborhood safety, accessibility, fairness, and quality of life for Santa Ana residents.

Sincerely,
Luis Obryan Perez
Santa Ana, California
Hard- working and tax- paying Santa Ana resident
2 Becerra, Alexis
From: francisco ochoa <
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 7:57 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Single Sided Parking Permit
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

We need Single sided parking permits on 514 Cypress Ave, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Residence from down the street parking in front of our apartments. It gets so bad that we have to park along Orange Ave and walk over. We have elderly residence and it is a big inconvenience for them. I would appreciate a response, if I could get one. Thank you for your time.
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Casey Renteria <
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 7:58 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Support Single- sided- permit parking
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

I support single sided permit parking. Everyone parks in the center and there is no where for our guests to park.

Best Regards,
Casey Renteria
DIRE License#
DOI License#
Mobile:
1 Becerra, Alexis
From: Guadalupe <
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 8:28 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Support single sided parking
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

I Support Single- Sided Permit Parking
We have the apartments down the street parking. And leaving cars park for weeks. Only move the cars for sweeper day.

Plus also they move the cans in trash day but don' t put them back. Risking our tras not being picked up 1 Becerra, Alexis
From:

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 8:33 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Parking. Single sided permit
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

To whom it may concern ,
I vote to have this in our neighborhood. There are too many vehicles per resident/ home. Also, home Business' s roofing companies, plumbers ect), also bring their work vehicles home, monopolizing the street parking; therefore taking parking spots from residents
Thankyou
Sent from AOL on Android
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Yesica Urbano <
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 8:47 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Support Single- Sided Permit.

Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Enviado desde mi iPhone
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Nancy Ramirez <
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 8:49 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Parking Permit
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Hello,
I am writing to request enforcement of residential parking permit in Henninger Neighhood.

I would appreciate it if the City could review this situation and consider parking permit regulations. Consistent enforcement would help ensure that permit parking remains available for authorized residents and visitors.

Please let me know if any additional information would be helpful. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Get Outlook for iOS
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: janet hernandez <
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 7:27 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Support Single- Sided Permit Parking
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for Whone
1 Becerra, Alexis
From: J <
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 7:46 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Support Single- Sided Permit Parking
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

I support and would like for single sided parking permit enforcement to be allowed Sincerely Jose Pedroza
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Cesar Contreras <
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 8:32 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Support Single- Sided Permit Parking
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

I support single side parking permit also add a parking enforcement or sub contract parking officer to actually enforce the permit parking.
1 Becerra, Alexis
From: Yesica Urbano <
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 8:50 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Support Single- Sided Permit Parking
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Enviado desde mi iPhone
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Yvonne Roa <
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 8:02 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Support single sided parking
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Yvonne Roa
1 Becerra, Alexis
From: Michael Mavrovouniotis <
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 9:46 PM
To: eComment
Subject: General Public Comment to the City Council
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Voice of OC, September 14, 2026
County Government Wants Your Input on a Budget It Won' t Show You https:// voiceofoc. org/ 2026/ 09/ mavrovouniotis- county- government- wants- your- in put- on- a- budget- it- wont- show- you/ Orange County has opened a public comment period on its next five- year financial plan. But it has not opened its books. The OC budget is thick in paper and theatrical outreach, but thin on substance.

The city contracts with Orange County Animal Care. Does it not bother you that its budget is so opaque? If you have any doubts, just look at the Los Angeles County budget for Animal Care and Control. Go to https:// ceo. lacounty. gov/ budget/ scroll down and download Volume I. On pages 54- 58 ( marked as 6. 1-6. 5 in the document) you get a lot more detail than in Orange County. It has about ten times as much information, including breaking down revenue and expenses into detailed categories. 1 Becerra, Alexis
From: Gina Mendoza <
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 10:16 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Support Single- Sided Permit Parking
Attachments: Imagejpeg
Importance: High
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Hi -
100% Supporting this!
Parking is out of control in the area of Townsend and Pomona behind Valley High School. People are even parking right at corners creating blind spots and blocking fire hydrants! The streets are loaded with trash bins for people trying to save parking. Unacceptable! I am a homeowner who cannot even have company because there is nowhere to park due to inconsiderate renters! I hope something becomes of this! 1 I
Ile
ul LLJ
nC'
02 ui
LLI
Z •OLU
C
uir
0 Q
V
W
FJ
oZW
r
WW
LU
UJ
CL
JW
o
jII1T - ,
y`
Becerra, Alexis
From: Andrew Salazar <
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 2:52 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Request for Approval of Single- Sided Permit Parking on South Shelton Street between West Pine Street and West Chestnut Avenue)
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.

My family has lived in our Ward 2 corner home for over forty years. For decades, our neighborhood was peaceful, but over the past five years, our side street—... South Shelton Street, between West Pine Street and West Chestnut Avenue— has turned into a severe public safety hazard.

There are six homes on this block. And all three households on our side of the street stand completely United in Requesting Single- Sided Permit Parking.

The opposing homes across the street are the source of the crisis, using our side as a staging ground for unlicensed street mechanic work and unregistered vehicles used as storage and saving parking.

Parking control officers told me they are well aware of the situation: tickets and towing aren' t working because the drivers use unregistered, ' disposable' cars they don' t care about. Even when one vehicle is towed, another immediately takes its place in an endless cycle.

Beyond the illegal repairs, these parked vehicles shield dangerous activity directly outside our bedrooms at night. People gather at night to drink alcohol and use drugs; we constantly find open alcohol containers, small bags with crack, and individuals urinate on our bushes and trees, causing a foul smell. In March of 2025, one of those individuals jumped our fence, caused property damage, and attempted to break into both our home and our neighbor' s. This constant threat has created severe fear and stress, particularly for my disabled, housebound family member who cannot defend himself.

Whenever we report these violations, we face direct retaliation. They rev loud engines and blast music from their cars parked at the side of our home at 1:00 AM to intimidate us. They illegally block parking spaces next to our home with trash cans and dirt bikes to prevent us from parking. Our own vehicles have been crashed into four times, screws have been planted on our tires, and illegal fireworks have been detonated directly underneath our cars to intimidate us from parking and retaliate.

Routine police calls cannot solve this problem without removing the staging ground. Single- sided permit parking on our side of South Shelton Street, between West Pine st and West Chestnut ave, will dismantle this illegal operation and protect vulnerable, long- term residents. We urge you to approve Single- Sided Permit Parking for our block. Thank you. 1 Becerra, Alexis
From: Miguel A Ibarra <
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 2:57 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Single Sided Permit Parking
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Good afternoon,
I support and want single sided permit parking to be approved and enforced.

Thank you for your attention to this delicate matter!
Best Regards,
I' ll o, o I' ll 1111c, Mo I" C' .... M"........ F.... o. ,. Fom...........

Miguel A Ibarra
1 Becerra, Alexis
From: Jorge Velazquez <
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 3:02 PM
To: eComment
Subject: I Support Single- Sided Permit Parking
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Please consider updating our residential permit parking rules to allow single- sided approval.

Every street has distinct parking conditions, and parking burdens rarely impact both sides equally. Under the current process, opposition from one side of the street effectively vetoes relief for the other. Allowing single- sided permits provides a fair, practical compromise: It gives homeowners parking relief where they need it, without forcing restrictions on the rest of the street.

Thank you for your consideration.
i
Becerra, Alexis
From: Julia Phi < unicef@kiwins. org>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2026 12:28 PM
To: Phan, Thai; eComment
Subject: Re: Request to Present at the September 15 City Council Meeting Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

On Sat, Sep 5, 2026 at 11: 27 AM Julia Phi < unicef@kiwins. org> wrote:

Hello, Thai Viet Phan,
My name is Julia Phi, and I serve as the District UNICEF Chair for California- Nevada- Hawaii KIWIN' S, a service organization that promotes service and leadership. I represent over 2, 500 active members across California, serving as an international liaison between UNICEF USA and Key Club International.

I am not sure if you remember me, but I am also currently a senior at Los Amigos High School. I have lived in Santa Ana Ward 1 for most of my life, and I was also recognized at a City Council meeting for my work with the Civic Action Club.

I am writing this email because I would like to request the opportunity to present a speech at the September 15 City Council Meeting alongside my committee member, Kaylee Enriquez.

Every year, UNICEF and Key Club International partner during October to promote the Start Strong: Zambia Initiative, an initiative in which students across the United States collaborate by raising money to support children in Zambia. These funds help provide access to cleaner water, improved school facilities, and better infrastructure. By having the opportunity to present at the City Council Meeting, we would be able to advocate for these issues and raise awareness within our community. We also hope to promote our efforts and garner support from other individuals and organizations.

If this would be possible, please let me know. We will ensure that our presentation follows the designated time limit. We are also planning to bring members of our home club board to stand behind us in support during the presentation.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Julia Phi
Oro ting into Service * °.*
r-- j ....................-,
1-.......

L:,j
DISTRICT UNICEF CHAIR 12026- 2027
Cal-Nev- Ha KIWIN' S I 32nd District of Key Club International Jet Division I Los Amigos High School
714) 262- 3632 1u niceffi) kiwi ns. org
Orbiting into Service
DISTRICT UNICEF CHAIR 1 2026- 2027
Cal-Nev- Ha KIWIN' S I 32nd District of Key Club International Jet Division I Los Amigos High School
714) 262- 3632 1u niceffl) kiwi ns. org
F-1
2 Becerra, Alexis
From: Kim Fortun < kfortun@uci. edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 11:30 AM
To: eComment
Cc: James Adams
Subject: Public Comment to City Council from Cornerstone Neighborhood Association Re:

Zoning code update
Attachments: 9.15.2026 CORNERSTONE Village Public Comment REZoning code update. pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.

See attached Public Comment to City Council from Cornerstone Neighborhood Association Re: Zoning code update.

Kim Fortun, Professor
Director, UCI EcoGovLab
Department of Anthropology
University of California Irvine
kfortun uci. edu 1518- 727- 1244
1 Contact: Yezenia Marrujo

PUBLIC COMMENT TO

CITY OF SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL
r
Tuesday, September 15, 2026
FROM: Yezenia Marrujo, for the City of Santa Ana
Cornerstone Village Neighborhood Association'
Asociaci6n del vecindario
RE: Call for zoning justice
Cornerstone
Village
Spanish version
I am Yezenia Marrujo, a resident and representative of the City of Santa Ana' s Cornerstone Village Neighborhood Association. I also am a Community Research Associate with University of California EcoGovLab.

I have followed the City' s zoning code update process since it started and write today to voice strong opposition to the draft Zoning Code Update approved by the City of Santa Ana' s Planning Commission on August 31, 2026.

Our opposition is due to the following:

The current draft was released in mid- July and there have not been adequate opportunities for community input. We have spoken with city staff at community meetings, at Planning Commission meetings and at earlier City Council meetings, but we have not been heard and our feedback is not reflected in the latest zoning code draft.

The latest draft has fewer environmental protections and other community benefits for Cornerstone Village than the draft released a year earlier.2 More specifically, there has not been adequate time to study, comment on and amend the list of land uses that will be allowed in Residential- Industrial Interface near Cornerstone. Further, many dangerous land uses are not on the list of unpermitted land use, so could easily be interpreted to be allowable. Rail facilities and Hazardous Waste Storage were removed from the table list of allowable uses, for example, rather than clearly listed as not permitted.

Prepared in partnership with UCI EcoGovLab. Contact: Kim Fortun, kfortun uci. edu 2See October 2025 Zoning Update Marls (p7-8) I July 2026 Zoning Update Maps. The July 2026 maps have been slightly amended but still do not include the protections offered by the " Business Park" in the October 2025 maps. The Business Park designation was also inadequately protective but not to the extent of the currently proposed Residential Industrial Interface. 1 Contact: Yezenia Marrujo
Given recent back- and- forth between city staff and planning commissioners, it is difficult to know where the recommended list of allowable uses in the Residential- Industrial Interface is at. That there isn' t clarity is further evidence that there has not been adequate time for community evaluation and comments.

Our understanding and evaluation is as follows.

Land Use in
Residential October 2025 July 2026 August 21 Cornerstone Village Industrial Zoning Zonina revisions Evaluation
Interface Update Maps UJ date
around
p7- 8)
Maps
Cornerstone
Village

INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING
Heavy Not Permitted CUP Not Permitted Should not be permitted. recycling
processing
Light recycling Not Permitted MCUP Not Permitted Should not be permitted. processing
General CUP Permitted No reference It is unclear what this manufacturing category includes.

Recycling Not Permitted CUP Not Permitted Should not be permitted.

Processing
Facility, Heavy
Hazardous Not Permitted CUP Removed from Should be listed as not materials table permitted.
storage
Research Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous waste should laboratories Waste Not Waste Waste Not not be permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Major vehicle Not Permitted Permitted No reference Should be reviewed for repair environmental impacts.

Machine MCUP Permitted No reference Should be reviewed for shops environmental impacts
Impound Not Permitted P/ CUP No reference
yards
2 Contact: Yezenia Marrujo
Lumberyard Not permitted Permitted No reference
Laundry & Dry Not permitted Permitted Not Permitted Should not be permitted.

Cleaning Plant See a news report of a
scientific study showing
that living near dry
cleaners significantly
increases risk of
Parkinson' s disease.

Data Center CUP CUP Added back to Should be listed as not table as
permitted. Data centers
not- allowed at
can generate significant air
recommendation
and noise pollution. Seeof Planning
Commission this scientific article in the
Journal of
Eco- Environment and
Health.

TRANSPORTATION
Freight/ truck Not Permitted CUP Allowed ( after Should not be permitted. terminals recommendation Freight, truck and bus
by Planning terminals are a major
Commission on
source of air pollution, withAugust 21 draft)
clearly documented
negative health effects.

See this report by the
Union of Concerned
Scientists.

Vehicle MCUP Permitted No reference Should not be permitted Fueling due to associated pollution
Stations
Battery CUP MCUP Not Permitted Should not be permitted.

Energy
Storage
Systems
Rail Facility Not listed Permitted Removed from Should be listed as not table permitted.

RETAIL
3 Contact: Yezenia Marrujo
Heavy Not Permitted CUP Not Permitted Should not be permitted.

Equipment
Sales and
Rental
Large Retail Establishment CUP CUP Review should include a Establishment size was not thorough environmental
distinguished impact analysis.

Associated traffic would
exacerbate existing air
pollution.

Grocery Store Not listed Not Permitted Should be fully reviewed, Permitted especially if large. While
important in communities,
grocery stores increase
traffic and traffic pollution.

Other areas of the City will benefit from the Zoning Code Update much more than Cornerstone Village. Unless amended, the City of Santa Ana' s Zoning Code will reproduce deep inequality within the City of Santa Ana.

Cornerstone Village needs more, not less, environmental protections than other areas of the City. CaIEPA' s Calenviroscreen mapping tool shows Cornerstone Village in the 99th percentile for overall pollution burden, and the 96th percentile for ( air) toxic releases. This is for permitted( e.g. legal) pollution. Even without breaking the law, existing industrial operations in the Cornerstone area cause starkly disproportionate pollution compared to the rest of the state, and to other areas of Santa Ana. This calls for special action to reduce pollution near Cornerstone Village and throughout the City' s southeastern quadrant.

The current draft of the zoning code does not protect public health. Exceptionally high rates of low birth weight ( associated with preterm birth) in Cornerstone Village are illustrative. See below a visualization from CaIEPA' s CalEnviroScreen that shows the Cornerstone Village census tract in the 99th percentile for overall pollution burden, in the the 96th percentile for ( air) toxic releases and in the 87th percentile for low birth weight babies. In other words: Cornerstone has more low weight babies than most census tracts throughout the state.

Cornerstone community members have also provided extensive testimony about preterm births ( and cascading effects across their children' s life course). Watch their public comments on the recording of the August 31, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting ( at 55min, 1 hour and 1. 05 hour).
4 Contact: Yezenia Marrujo
The connection between air pollution, low birth rate babies and other negative health effects have been extensively studied and confirmed by scientists. See this summary list of studies published by the US National Institute for Environmental Health Science, with a screenshot of studies focused on pollution and children' s health below. https:// www. niehs. nih. gov/ health/ topics/ agents/ air- pollution https:// www. niehs. nih. aov/ health/ topics/ enfermedades/ contaminacion UIEnv Screen 5. 0 Resuhs', Cnsas Tract
a0590] AAa3
CelE rroS, ia„ S. 0 9A 42
Fbll, rt, on B,. rden 990a
iUr Ll, wlnt: Owne 52. Wi
AlrQ y: MIKA Ii
Childn- toad R as!• um Ho, nimg ? a. ea
6rinL„ gwee.,[ o,. ami„ ann aA. aS
Na, u J. 0. 00
ms B. I. e= a. rim rx; lai.. 9s. ea
rr. nK 9s. 0e
Gra,. nMetei Tdveete 9d 99
Hauraous WaeECGmeraM•; antl rxilRles 9?. 9a
Psi,• d M— 4. W
Small M Tusk dives 98. 24
Solid Wasa sires e, H raciliries
BID
Asthma 591
n, ebnes P, e.. l.. 101a
Birch- W¢. a 92. 30
Children
Other studies on women and children
@reachingPM 2,5, even at relatively low levels, may allerth¢ The N I EH S- fun d ed Chi ltire n' sHealth5tudyC, at the UniversiryofSouthernCalifornia slxeolacbllit. sdevetopipgyrdbL, whlch may Wrin ry is one of the largest stud ies of the long- term effects of air p olIutio n on chi l dren' s increase the risk for cognitive and emotional problems later respiratory health. Among Its findings:
in adoleaaenee.

In a large- scale study that looked at more than t million e
birth records, prenatal PM2. 5 exposure was associated vain khHigher air pollution G levels increase short- term respiratory infections, which lead tie increasc Lris4 es er€ brai palsy', while this find IN adds ta more seha of abse n ces to Knowledge ab.. ensdron— 1red, 9aams far cerebral ri dnnmlupmertt and h— m reduce the chP are of it
Children who play several outdoor sports G and live in high ozone communities an dewaoping, wormer studies areneeded. prenatal exposumoo Pars waeassodated more likely to develop asthma. with Drain development effects, slower processing speed, attentlondii and hyperaulvity disorder IAOHnI sympro—, a rid other— rohetwvloral prdMemc InChildren living near busy roads v have an Increased chance of developing asthma. carli.

Ch ildren who were exposed to high levels of ai r pol l uta nts were more likely to Prenatal exposaretn air pnnnnnn may pray acme in the dl. eloprn— of AnHn. develop 6ronchitls svmptoms in adulthood Ll. related hchaviar< problems in childhood.

Living in communities with higher pollution levels can cause lung damage rFZ.

Prenatal exposure to particulate matter was associated with tow birth weigh;. women exposed to high kreis of line particulate matter during pregnancy, particulady in the third trimester, may have yn to twice the risk of naving a child wm autism cr,.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences '
Send and thirdbrimester exposure MPM2. 5mrght increase the chance ofthose Your Environment. Your Health.
rhilmmah hawing highs blM inn a to- I fe Z_
A large study of more than 300, 00o wamen found long- term exposure to air pmlution, especially ozone and PM2. 5, during and after pregnancy increases the risk of ppanum depression i.

The study wlTh data on more than 5 million hahlesassessed assoclations between Air Pollution and Your Health prenatal exposure to Wlldhre smoke and the risk ofpreterm III The researchers found that exposure to high levels ofvAldl particulate matter during any period of pregnancy was associated with a greater chance ofnreterm blrth Z.

University of California Irvine EcoGovLab I kfortun@uci. edu 5 Contact: Yezenia Marrujo
The current zoning code draft leaves Century High School — a " sensitor receptor" fully exposed to industrial operations ( as well as a freeway). The claim by City of Santa Ana staff and planning commissioners that this is not the City' s responsibility because the industrial zone was there before the school is not persuasive.

City staff and planning commissioners continue to state that industrial zones are needed to provide jobs and support the economy— without providing supporting data ( City revenue generated in the City' s east- side industrial zone, for example). The claim that cities need heavy industry to provide jobs and create City revenue is based on an out- dated model of successful urban development. Future land use should be restricted to non- polluting, " green" businesses. Current industrial land uses within 1000 feet of homes and schools should become non- conforming to disallow expansions and allow for up- zoning when the property changes hands. This can follow the example of the National City Amortization Policy, which establishes a "process to terminate a nonconforming use after a period of time that is sufficient to allow the owner of the property and/ or business to recover their investment in the use/ business." Also see California Air Resources Board guidance.

The City of Santa Ana' s Zoning Code needs to proactively address cumulative pollution — the combined effects of traffic and multiple nearby industrial operations, exacerbated by extreme heat. A supporting ordinance can be modeled on Newark' s Environmental Justice and Cumulative Impact Ordinance, passed in 2016, which improves information about pre- existing pollution in the City, recognizing that proposals for new projects need to be evaluated for their expected cumulative impacts.

This ordinance can also be modeled on New Jersey' s Environmental Justice Law, passed in 2020, which requires mandatory permit denials if an environmental justice analysis determines that a new facility will have a disproportionately negative impact on already overburdened communities.

The draft zoning code update is not accountable to the City' s 2022 General Plan' s core values":

HEALTH The people of Santa Ana value a physical environment that encourages healthy lifestyles, a planning process that ensures that health impacts are considered, and a community that actively pursues policies and practices that improve the health of our residents.

EQUITY Our residents value taking all necessary steps to ensure equitable outcomes, expanding access to the tools and resources that residents need, and to balance competing interests in an open and democratic manner.

SUSTAINABILITY Santa Ana values land use decisions that benefit future generations, plans for the impacts of climate change, and incorporates sustainable design practices at all levels of the planning process. 6 Contact: Yezenia Marrujo
The draft zoning code is not accountable to the 77 Environmental Justice Implementation Actions in the 2022 General Plan. The zoning code, or associated documents, should include a chart that associates the Environmental Justice Implementation Actions with specific ways they are realized in the updated zoning code.

The zoning code should also include documentation that shows how CalEnviroScreen indicators ( used to calculate the extent of environmental injustice in a particular area) have been addressed in the zoning code update.

We list here just a few of the Environmental Justice Implement Actions that are not realized in the current draft of the zoning code update.

Land Use Element Policy LU- 1.1 I Compatible Uses
Foster compatibility between land uses to enhance livability and promote healthy lifestyles.

Land Use Element Policy LU- 1.3 I Equitable creation and Distribution of Open Space Promote the creation of new open space and community- serving amenities in park- deficient areas that keeps pace with the increase in multi- unit housing development, with priority given to those that are also within environmental justice area boundaries.

Land Use Element I Policy LU- 3. 1 I Community Benefits Support new development which provides a net community benefit and contributes to neighborhood character and identity.

Land Use Element I Policy LU- 3.2 I Empower Community
Facilitate community engagement and dialogue in policy decisions and outcomes affecting land use and development, with supplemental opportunities for proposed planning activities within environmental justice area boundaries.

Land Use Element I Policy LU- 3.3 I Enforcement of Standards Maintain a robust and proactive code enforcement program that partners with community stakeholders and is responsive to community needs.

Land Use Element I Policy LU- 3.8 I Sensitive Receptors Avoid the development of industry and sensitive receptors in close proximity to each other that could pose a hazard to human health and safety due to the quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics of the hazardous materials utilized, or the hazardous waste an operation may generate or emit. 7 Contact: Yezenia Marrujo
Land Use Element I Policy LU- 3.9 I Noxious, Hazardous, Dangerous, and Polluting Uses Improve the health of residents, students, and workers by limiting the impacts of construction activities and operation of noxious, hazardous, dangerous, and polluting uses that are in close proximity to sensitive receptors, with priority given to discontinuing such uses within environmental justice area boundaries.

Land Use Element I Policy LU- 3. 11 I Air Pollution Buffers Work with the Environmental Justice Action Committee to develop and implement landscaping and other local land use and zoning buffer strategies, guided by the California Air Resources Board and Southern California Air Quality Management District best practices, to separate existing sensitive uses from rail lines, heavy industrial facilities, and other emissions sources. As feasible, apply more substantial buffers within environmental justice area boundaries.

The current draft of the zoning code does not reflect guidance from the Attorney General of California sent to the City of Santa Ana in 2020 to ensure compliance with California Senate Bill 1000, a law requiring cities like Santa Ana— with many environmentally disadvantaged communities — to integrate environmental justice policies into their General Plans, in turn implementing these policies though zoning codes and other ordinances.

The Attorney General' s letter instructed the City to do the following:

To affirmatively reduce the health risks and pollution burdens facing environmental justice communities as required by Senate Bill 1000— with special consideration for" sensitive receptors" like schools and daycares.

To establish affirmative requirements for separation between industrial uses and sensitive receptors in the City' s disadvantaged communities, following California Air Resources Board recommendations that buffers between industrial uses and sensitive receptors be at least 1000 feet. The letter refers to CARB research that demonstrates that localized air pollution drops off by 80 percent about 1,000 feet away.

To develop detailed plans for specific disadvantaged communities — like Cornerstone Village— to address the unique challenge of those communities.

The letter points to the City of Placentia as a model.

To address public safety concerns by improving the built environment. Creating an off-street walkway from Cornerstone Village to Century High School would help accomplish this.
8 Contact: Yezenia Marrujo
To sustain community engagement in implementing the City' s General Plan. Thus far, the City of Santa Ana has only provided one page reports on environmental justice in their annual General Plan progress reports. This is not adequate.

We have not learned of any provisions in the Zoning Code Update that will give residents of Cornerstone Village a role in decision- making about future land use and zoning code monitoring near Cornerstone Village. The City of Santa Ana Zoning Code Update should include the following:

Annual zoning code reporting requirements for General Plan Accountability, including accountability for the General Plan' s 77 Environmental Justice Implementation Actions.

General Plan updates should include a detailed accounting of how environmental injustice has been addressed in a given year, including an explanation of any use of the City' s Nuisance Ordinance.
9

Santa Ana City CouncilSeptember 15, 2026

Santa Ana City Council
September 15, 2026