The Brief

For the first time since giving up a nearly $7 million state grant for child care programming in May, Santa Ana’s city management publicly presented the reason why, saying they couldn't afford the ancillary costs associated with the money.

The decision raised questions about how the city gave up on the contract that would have created seven child care facilities and served more than 500 of Santa Ana’s most vulnerable youth, and why it failed to inform the City Council before doing so.

Santa Ana was awarded $6.7 million by the state in 2023 for child care and development programming. The money would pay for new staff, licensing, training, program equipment, community engagement and state-required facility upgrades. That includes maintaining the overall operation of the program.

“If we ever have a grant of this size, any decisions that should be made should be made here at the dais, publicly,” City Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez said. “Especially when it comes to millions of dollars.”

What did the city say? 

Assistant City Manager Kathryn Downs told the City Council on Tuesday that the contract was relinquished because the city could not handle the state’s complex requirements.

“These concerns included compliance with a series of federal regulations, as well as California Title 5 and Title 22 regulations addressing educational requirements and health and safety issues,” Downs said.

She said the city didn’t have an expert on navigating California’s stringent regulations. According to city records, parks and recreation staff were in the process of hiring a site director who would have had that expertise to regulate and license the city’s facilities.

“There was a plan to bring experts onto staff to help navigate the implementation of this program, and additional resources,” Downs said. “The reality of it is that that's placing a lot of trust in a new staff member to stand up something for the city that comes with complex compliance issues and significant liability if you fail to do so.”

She said the upfront price of the program would have cost the city millions of dollars.

City records and the state’s funding terms and conditions say the city would have been reimbursed for “costs that are reasonable and necessary to the performance of the contract,” which includes startup costs.

In November 2024, the City Council unanimously approved a $915,583 contract with the state as the first round of funding to jumpstart the program.

“With some of the compliance issues such as providing different bathrooms for adults and children with different-sized fixtures … I just don't see how that initial award of $915,000 would have been sufficient for the capital, facilities and equipment that we needed to start up the program,” Down said.

The city would have had to build one restroom for adults, one for children and one that was gender-neutral, Mayor Valerie Amezcua said at the meeting. When asked how much it would cost to build two restrooms at all seven facilities, Downs said the city was looking at $10 million.

But Councilmember Jessie Lopez disputed those costs and said smaller restrooms are required by law for facilities serving toddlers. Santa Ana's program was intended for kids between the ages of 5 and 12, which means the requirements were only for individual locking stalls and not specialized fixtures.

Downs also said the clock was ticking because the state required the city to set up facilities by May 12, which she said was an unrealistic deadline.

But Lopez said only one facility had to be set up with at least one participant enrolled, and the city had the opportunity to request an extension.

When asked for clarification, Santa Ana spokesperson Paul Eakins declined to comment any further on the grant being relinquished —which was first reported by LAist.

Why and who are applauding the decision? 

Meanwhile, Amezcua and Councilmember Thai Viet Phan thanked the city for giving up on the $7 million.

“I would love to have had this in the city, but I think we need to be prepared,” Amezcua said. “It could possibly have cost us millions of dollars that we do not have.”

The city is facing a $35 million budget deficit in the next four years.

“We don't have the capacity for this,” Amezcua said. “I appreciate you guys, Mr. City Manager and your team, returning this and saying, 'Thank you, but no thank you.'"

Money comes with strings, Phan added.

“I think that with something like this, it's just so far outside the realm of something that we typically do,” Phan said. “It's not just an after-school program to keep kids off the street; it's an entirely new department that we essentially would have to set up.”

Why are some council members disappointed?

Lopez said affordable child care and youth programs are a priority for her office.

“I think it's important for everybody in this chamber to understand that even if 5-year-olds or 10 year-olds don't have lobbyists,” Lopez said. “It is our responsibility to ensure that we do anything and everything that we can to provide the services that they need to live a fulfilling and fruitful life.”

Also at issue, Lopez added, was the lack of communication between the full City Council and the city manager’s office.

“You're saying you communicated this decision to every member of this council, and we have a different recollection of that,” Lopez said. “I just want to make sure that moving forward … when your staff is receiving a directive from this council … that there is going to be an open line of communication.”

Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez said the funds could have been a helpful investment in the city’s centers and urged staff not to let this action deter them from applying for other grants.

“All our staff, thank you for the work that you do, and looking out for grants and swinging for the fences,” Vazuez said. “Think big and go out and get our grants, and we'll support you as much as we can from the dias, and we do appreciate your work.”

A request for comment to the city’s Parks and Recreation Department was also declined by Eakins.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.