Remarks by Phil Bacerra
77 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 4
- Play at 1:52:13
“Oh, that's right. That's right. Sylvia's husband. That's right.”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 1:52:19
“I know, I didn't know about how good he was. Well, scholarship recipients who benefit from those tournaments have gone on to work for such agencies as the Los Angeles County Fire Department, CAL FIRE, the Los Angeles City Fire Department, and the U.S. Forest Service. Beyond financial support, OC Bomberos also provides mentorship, pairing interested youth with a mentor to provide them with more information and share their experiences on careers in fire service. When the youth are old enough to apply for academies and jobs, OC Bomberos also assists them with test prep, scheduling ride-alongs,…”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:02:24
“I was going to pull item 30, but it's been pulled. Thank you.”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:08:30
“Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Vasquez, for pulling this. Staff, I don't know who would be the appropriate person to answer this. The one that's listed from Costa Mesa, I think I've talked to somebody in PD about this, but just to confirm for everybody, they have a Costa Mesa address listed, but in order to qualify or to be recommended, they had to have had a Santa Ana location. Is that correct?”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:09:24
“And I understand that, Chief, but what I'm saying is the one that is listed in the report as Costa Mesa, they actually do have a place where they can store cars within Santa Ana.”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:13:14
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:13:26
“Can speed humps be installed on Segerstrom Avenue?”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:13:41
“Are you sure, because everybody tonight seems to think that we can just slap them on every arterial, Harbor, Bristol, Sagerstrom, and I'm not trying to trivialize their request or their thoughts, but I just want to make sure that we fully flush it out, that that is not an option.”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:13:59
“Okay, so no speed humps, no matter how many applications you receive, we're not going to get speed humps on Sagerstrom.”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:14:05
“Okay, thank you for that, Rudy. If you guys look in the staff report, the city of Santa Ana experienced 3,487 total collisions in 2025, including 1,943 total injured and 26 fatalities, with unsafe speed determined to be the main factor in many of those collisions. Five of those 26 fatalities, as I've said before, included five young folks that died on Saturday, April 5th, 2025, when a car was racing down Sagerstrom Avenue at a dangerous speed and collided with a tree in the median near Grisette Place in my ward, not too far from my house. It is impossible to deploy police officers to all of…”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:17:35
“So no need for additional studies, no need for extensive legwork. It was really just like we would on anything within our current existing legislative platform, engaging with our state legislators, advocating on our city's behalf, correct?”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:17:50
“Okay, perfect. Thank you for that. Now I know, I respect that there are differences of opinion on this dais when it comes to continuous monitoring done by the automated license plate readers that we do have today in the city, but speed cameras are not automated license plate readers. So when everybody starts using the phrase surveillance, surveillance would mean that there's continuous monitoring. That is not what speed cameras do. In fact, according to the staff report, another thing we were talking about, or at least I heard up here as far as the idea that we don't want to test something…”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:37:38
“One last comment, and I just wanna be clear because it was mentioned up here that it would not be clear if these speed cameras at some point when installed would be effective. San Francisco, let me repeat again, San Francisco had a 73% reduction in speed violations at camera locations. 73%, not 7%, not 3%, not 7.3%, 73%. It's working. It is saving lives. If we don't even want to ask staff to take the resolution that we already have written and just give it to Senator Umberg and Assemblymember Valencia, wow. That's all I can say is wow. We would really just not even want to ask them to embark…”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:40:21
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:43:33
“Okay, perfect. That's all I have for you. Thank you. So in order to satisfy our city's AHOCO ordinance, it was almost as dramatic as Alvaro's, right? But he actually walked up there. It was a little, yeah. But in order to satisfy our city's AHOCO ordinance, building a project with 100% market rate housing, the applicant would have to build affordable housing units off-site or pay the in-lieu fee. According to San Adam Unicode Section 41-1904, a project proposing 20 or more units, which this project is proposing 400 units, and opting to pay the in lieu fee must also provide the city with an…”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:45:22
“Perfect, thank you for that. It's interesting that this proposed project is proposing to provide 20 affordable units, essentially 5% for extremely low income households, instead of 5% for very low income households. Now, why does that matter? The difference between very low and extremely low is that very low income applies to households earning between 30% and 50% of the area median income, or AMI. Extremely low income applies to households earning less than 30% of the AMI. So why 5% extremely low instead of just 5% very low? Because 5% extremely low, correct me if I'm wrong, Ali, 5%…”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:46:07
“And that would allow the applicant to not pay the in lieu fee, correct?”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:46:12
“And also then not build the project with the skilled and trained workforce, is that correct?”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:46:19
“Okay, perfect, thank you for that, Ali. So as I mentioned before, the project proposes to utilize the parking standards set forth in government code section 65915 for which this project is only gonna provide 516 spaces if approved. Also, the staff report states Actually, I'm glad you're still up here, Ali. The project is not anticipated to have any parking impacts. So let's think about that. They're gonna provide 40% less than what is required, and there's gonna be no impact. So Sandpoint, they'll have no cars coming over and parking in their neighborhood. So I guess, Ali, I'm just kind of…”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 3:47:54
“I appreciate that, Ali, and I respect your opinion and your staff's opinion. I'm just going to disagree with you on this one. I do not think it would. So I would say with the impact that this project is providing 40% less parking than needed and Pam Cepeda's efforts to not use a skilled and trained workforce, I won't be supporting the item in front of us tonight. Thank you.”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 4:10:24
“Thank you. Madam Clerk, mine says item 34. Mine says waiting.”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 4:11:49
“Actually, a couple of questions. Maybe, Ali, if you could. Naturally. Step up, of course. So in this item, so I only have two issues. So one is the notices for the public hearing. So I appreciate the thoroughness of what you require on here. One thing that I didn't see, and I'd like clarification from you, in regards to physical posting on the sites, or in this case, it would either be the historic property or a proposed historic district. I didn't see any language in there. Could you clarify if we have, physical posting requirements for, say, items going to public hearing at a planning…”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 4:12:56
“Okay, perfect, thank you. And then the other item that I wanted to ask you about is proposed section 30-10F states that the decision of the commission in concerning an appeal of a decision or recommendation of planning department staff shall be final. Maybe this is a question for our city attorney. are we allowed to codify something that has finality at the Planning Commission? Because just thinking of an appellant's ability to exhaust their appeals, right? In other words, you wouldn't just jump over the Planning Commission and file a lawsuit, right? Like you would go through Planning…”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 4:14:12
“I would, I mean, just because we're talking about property rights here, I would like to ask my colleagues, and I don't, Madam Clerk, who made the motion?”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026
- Play at 4:14:24
“So Mayor Pro Tem, I'd like to ask if you'd be willing to amend your motion so that we could amend Section 30-10F rather than have the decision of the commission be final, allow the decision of the commission to be appealable to the council. I think it's important that the council retains final decision-making power.”
City Council · Aug 4, 2026