The cat is out of the bag again in Santa Ana, as Jennifer Delson, of the L.A. Times, has once again focused on Mayor Miguel Pulido’s corruption, relative to the proposed “Renaissance Plan.” Pulido removed his business from that plan, which is what Delson disclosed in her article, as Gustavo Arellano has done over at the O.C. Weekly as well. Here are a few excerpt’s from Delson’s article:
When property owners complained that an ambitious plan to revamp a 123-block stretch of downtown Santa Ana could jeopardize their livelihoods, the plan’s map was quietly redrawn.
And when the new map emerged last year, the redevelopment zone no longer included businesses owned by the families of Mayor Miguel Pulido and Councilman Vincent Sarmiento.
Had Pulido’s muffler and brake shop and Sarmiento’s nightclub remained in the Renaissance Plan, they could have been affected by new zoning regulations and both politicians would have been barred from voting on the redevelopment project.
The Renaissance Plan calls for a sustained revitalization effort in the core of Orange County’s largest city, stretching from the county civic area to the train station.
The revised map eliminated several properties, including Ace Muffler and Brakes, owned by the Pulido family, and Festival Hall, owned by the Sarmiento family.
Neither Pulido or Sarmiento returned calls seeking comment.
City documents show that an auto business like Pulido’s would not conform with proposed zoning near the Civic Center area, though it could continue to operate.
The nightclub would conform but would have required a conditional-use permit.
Jay Trevino, the city’s planning director, said the Pulido and Sarmiento properties were eliminated from the project areas so that the two elected officials could vote on the plan without having a conflict of interest.
In fact, he said the map was being redrawn again to move boundaries of the plan farther than 500 feet from the homes of Councilwoman Michele Martinez and Planning Commissioner Victoria Betancourt so that they can vote.
Martinez lives 460 feet outside the boundary of the map.
Trevino said neither the mayor nor his council colleagues asked the city to revise the plan and that the city’s staff decided on its own to change the boundaries.
“It would be silly to have a plan that three council members can’t vote on,” he said.
Martinez, who was informed of the change by city staff last week, said it seemed improper to redraw the area’s map just to ensure that council members could vote.
“We shouldn’t be changing this plan so council members should vote on it,” said Martinez.
She said she believed that the location of her home was brought up only to deflect criticism about the exclusion of the Pulido and Sarmiento properties.
At a recent meeting, area business owners complained that, unlike them, Pulido and Sarmiento now won’t have to worry whether their properties comply with the area’s proposed zoning.
John Moore, co-owner of American Demolition, which removes hazardous waste and cuts concrete, said taking the properties out of the plan “is not honest or legitimate.”
Bob Adams, owner of Adams Iron, which fabricates and installs steel, said the exclusion of the elected officials’ property “seems fishy to me.”
State Sen. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), who has hosted several meetings with the business owners, also questioned why the map was changed.
“The big question is why are these business excluded?” said Correa.
“Is it because of a conflict of interest? If it’s a conflict of interest . . . the proper way to address that is not to vote on it all. You have a conflict of interest one way or another. If you exclude the property, you still have a conflict of interest. . . . “
Bob Stern, president of the nonprofit Center for Government Studies, said the Santa Ana approach was highly unusual.
“I’ve never heard of a situation where they remove themselves from a plan so they can vote on
it,” he said.
Note: Jennifer Delson also wrote an additional article about the Renaissance Plan itself. You can read it at this link.
UPDATE: Gustavo Arellano has put up his own take on this latest RSP scandal over at the O.C. Weekly’s Navel Gazing Blog, at this link.
I sure hope that the
This is the reason the plan is not trustworthy.
For the planning department to carve out areas, not because of any good planning process, but to allow certain supporters on the council to vote on this project is the worst decision ever. This department has no right to insert politics into what should be a pure planning process.
Does the plan make more sense using street boundaries as borders for the plan? Sure it does!
This is the first time I have ever heard of any city changing boundaries of a development (most cities don’t use this kind of spot zoning anyway, since it is considered poor planning and bad puiblic policy) and even the experts say it is highly unusual to make this kind of change to influence a vote.
Maybe since they have carved it up for certain council members to opt out, they should allow anyone within the project area to also be allowed to opt out. That would be fair and equitable.
Art:
Seems like your puppet Michele Martinez also got her hand caught in the cookie jar. Must be tough attacking the mayor while remaining moot about Michele’s conflict.
It’s of no consequence, because even though Michele was well aware of her conflict, the RSP is being redrawn to eliminate the conflict.
How nice!
#2,
Mayor tells Ream, Ream tells Trevino to redraw the boundary lines for the RSP. Trevino doesn’t have the stones, nor the authority to redraw the boundary lines unilaterally without direction from the top. The mayor yanked the left string and the Ream puppet issued the edict. Remember, the RSP is a very internally directed project – I would venture to say at least 50 city staff members have spent time and effort on this project. The rehabilitation of this neighborhood is designed to conform with nuevo-chic planning principals of today; hipsters and Starbucks on every corner…live/work lofts that are completely overpriced, and the complete removal of industrial uses that generate well paying jobs.
This projec is dead on arrival. The City has once again opened itself up to years of litigation because of the abborhent, corruption behavior of its leadership. Belive me, all of those houses that are currently boarded up and owned by the city, will remain that way for years to come. There should be all sorts of lawyers well-versed in land use regulations lining up around the block at the chance to sue the city on behalf of all the affected property owners.
I would advise the city that they should level all of the boarded up houses in that entire neighborhoods and build pocket parks. Settle in folks, the RSP will be decided in the courts.
Santa Ana is treated as a large toilet by the Mayor and majority council members. Keep exposing them.
They need to go.
I wonder if Martinez would have voted on the plan if they had not drawn around her property. This thing is getting deep,.
#6
Sarmineto nor Martinez were seated on the council when the “original” boundaries were drawn — only the mayor.
It should not be a surprise that the mayor did not want his property included in this plan, since his political life began fighting such a project many years ago. By all appearances, the Sarmiento family interests were protected because the mayor was the primary advocate to appoint Sarmiento to the council. The primary question that needs to exposed is the fact the Vince Sarmiento has legally represented the interests of the family and his professional involvment could be a conflict of interest. Furthermore, did Sarmiento have prior access to inside information as it pertains to the RSP? Is that one of the reasons the mayor pushed for the appointment of Sarmineto? Oh, too many ethical questions regarding Sarmiento. And is this behavior becoming a CA practicing attorney?
As far as Martinez, if the mayor had his druthers he would have left her property within the RSP boundaries. Or would he? Hmmm .. dragging Martinez into this ethical quagmire certainly takes some of the stink off him and Sarmiento.
Vote No on Measure D
FYI
Michele asked Trevino in 2006 if she would be in conflict. He stated taht she did not live close enough to be in conflict. As far as Bettancourt goes,the first time the planning commission met in 2006 they knew she was in conflict.In 2006 they had Pulido & Sarmientos section as “B”. When questioned the council stated that it was for voting purposes and they would leave when a vote was for the “B” section,but they could vote on “A”.
Pulido owns property on Lacy ,so as far as I am concerned,neither one should vote at all.
And the beat goes on,,another day in the crooked Politics of santie annie.
” Anonymous Says:
1/21/2008 7:26 AM
I wonder if Martinez would have voted on the plan….”
I am at a lost “anon”
What vote are you talking about???
The “RSP” has not reached the council yet, has it? Has the planning commission even voted on it yet?
Councilmember Martinez should rise above all of this and recuse herself from voting on the RSP and demand that the RSP not be carved up any further.
She should also ask that other effected Councilmembers do the same.
This would re-cast the light on what the Mayor and Councilmember Sarmiento have done.
Sarmiento attended Chareete sessions and was very “excited” about the paln. I am sure taht he knew prior to April 2006.
My understanding is that Michele Martinez has adviced Trevino, Ream, the Mayor and the other council members that she will not vote on the RSP even though she was excluded fron the boundaries.
Michele did not request to be excluded from the boundaries. She does not support the boundary changes. To be cosistant with her beliefs , she will not vote on the matter. Based on this decision she will be excluded from further council discussions regarding the RSP.
I also understand Sarmiento is saying he will also exclude himself from voting on the RSP even though the Festival Hall was excluded from the RSP boundaries.
There are other properties that have been excluded from the boundaries. There are no council members having ownwership of them or have businesees in the buildings that would present a conflict. Why then are they excluded? Is there a process where property owners can participate to have their businesses excluded? Why and what criteria was eveluated to have those other properties and businesses excluded? Is this fair play?