The Brief

California law enforcement agencies are required to track and publicly document how they use military equipment, including less-lethal bean bag shotgun rounds, drones and armored vehicles, under a state law passed in 2022.

But Santa Ana’s Police Department has been out of compliance with this law for the past two years, Commander Mat Sorenson told a crowd of about 10 people at a community meeting Wednesday.

“We messed up,” Sorenson said. “ We dropped the ball, now we're trying to fix it.”

The law, Assembly Bill 481, requires law enforcement to make annual public reports describing how and why military equipment was deployed, including summaries of complaints, internal investigations and potential violations related to the equipment.

Police Chief Robert Rodriguez said the department prepared reports for the years of 2023 and 2024. But because of what Rodriguez called an “administrative oversight,” those reports were not shared publicly or presented to city leaders as required by the law to continue using the weapons.

The department retroactively produced the reports and discussed a report covering the past year at the sparsely attended community meeting Wednesday afternoon. LAist spoke with everyone who attended the meeting as a community member. Each one said they were disappointed by the hastily planned meeting and lack of detail in the reports.

David Pulido — who's on the police accountability committee at Community Service Organization Orange County, a group advocating for Chicano rights — told LAist after the meeting, “ I wasn't happy with the presentation. I felt it was kind of like running cover for the department. It was brief, not well publicized, poorly attended.”

What the reports say

According to a report covering May 2024 to April 2025 that was presented Wednesday, the Santa Ana Police Department has access to military equipment like armored vehicles, a “long range acoustic device” and one “tactical robot.” The report says the maintenance of the equipment cost the department around $30,000.

The report lacks summaries of why and how the equipment was deployed. It explains that Santa Ana police deployed military equipment in response to “field based incidents” 30 times — including four instances with the SWAT team — and to “community events” 11 times. Police detained 21 suspects while using military equipment, the report states.

No information was provided on whether the use of these weapons resulted in serious injuries. The report does say that no one was killed by Santa Ana police using military equipment during the review period.

According to the report, the police department did not receive community complaints and the use of these weapons were “deemed appropriate” per an internal review by police.

Problems with the law

The contents of military equipment reports vary by agency. If those in attendance Wednesday are disappointed with the thoroughness of Santa Ana’s reports, Sorenson said they could blame state lawmakers.

 ”The legislature's very good at telling us what we have to do, but not how to do it,” Sorenson told the audience.

He said he looked at other agencies' reports: some that were a few pages long, others that were 65 pages long, and picked a happy medium.

“I  don't know that anybody's gonna go through 65 pages of stuff,” Sorenson said.

Pulido, of the Community Service Organization Orange County, agreed that weaknesses in the report stem from weaknesses in the underlying law.

“ It's not enough to have a report,” he said, adding that a report can be “biased” as it is up to law enforcement agencies on how they want to frame it. The report provided by Santa Ana police was “very brief” and “lacking information,” Pulido said.

Assembly Bill 481 does not lay out any enforcement mechanisms, another weakness according to Pulido.

“If it has no enforcement mechanisms, it's not gonna get enforced,” he said.

Community weighs in

The presentation did not satisfy Bulmaro "Boomer" Vicente, a resident of Santa Ana and policy and political director at Chispa who was at Wednesday’s meeting.

“ I was concerned and disappointed in the report itself because there were some things that were missing, some costs that were missing as it related to transportation personnel costs, training and usage upgrade, things that should have been included,” Vicente said. “His response to not having a more detailed report is he doesn't think people will read them, which is very problematic.”

Vicente added that the report lacked information “ important for transparency, for accountability, and also to ensure that department is being fully compliant with state law.”

Vicente was also disappointed that the meeting appeared to be hastily put together for a time when few people could attend.

The meeting was announced on the police department’s social media accounts on July 10 and held at the department’s headquarters at 4 p.m. before the end of a typical work day. Vicente said that time and location was not accessible for all constituents in the city.

He said he wishes the meeting was held at a time where  working class families can attend and at a “more community central space where people who may not feel comfortable entering the police department can have the opportunity and feel comfortable in expressing their questions, their concerns, and their grievances.”

City leader weighs in 

Councilmember Jessie Lopez was the only city leader present at Wednesday’s community meeting.

“ I appreciate them being honest,” she said. “Their acknowledgement that a mistake happened and this is why they haven't had community meetings and I think it's a good starting point.”

Lopez, like the community members, did not find the report adequate, calling it a “quick presentation.”

“ We're a city of over 300,000 residents, and so there wasn't even 20 people in that room. It was being hosted at 4 p.m. during a workday. There was no Zoom link available,” she said about the limited community engagement.

The new reports will come in front of the City Council Tuesday. Lopez said the meeting Wednesday will help her prepare for the council meeting.

“ It helps me draft and come up questions that I'll be asking from the dais,” she said.

How to watchdog your police department

One of the best things you can do to hold officials accountable is pay attention.

AB481 requires police departments, including those at transit agencies, school districts and university campuses, sheriff’s departments, district attorney’s offices and probation departments, to provide reports about the use of military equipment..

So how do you know if they're in compliance? It’s simple, search for the law enforcement agency name and AB 481 on any search engine and a public page should pop up.

You can learn more about the use of equipment at community meetings law enforcement agencies are required to hold to provide transparency and discuss the policies that affect your community.

You can also attend City Council meetings where this is discussed.

• Read tips on how to get involved.
• The next scheduled Santa Ana City Council meeting is Tuesday, Aug. 19. You can check out the Santa Ana City Council full calendar here and learn how to submit a public comment. 

If your law enforcement agency is not in compliance and you would like to share a tip, reach out to yfarzan@laist.com.

LEILA FADEL, HOST:

President Trump has repeatedly said that in enforcing immigration policy, he would deport criminals, rapists and the worst of the worst. But new data reveals that in the first nine months of the president's second term, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested more than 74,000 people with no criminal record. That's more than a third of the total ICE arrests in that period. Those numbers were provided by ICE to the Deportation Data Project, a joint initiative of UCLA and UC Berkeley Law and analyzed by NPR. For more, I spoke to Ariel Ruiz Soto, a senior policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute. And I started by asking him what this says about the Trump administration's approach to immigration enforcement.

ARIEL RUIZ SOTO: Well, at first, it contradicts the earlier messaging from the Trump administration that it's focused on the worst to the worst and targeting criminal convictions. However, recently, the administration has also said that anybody here in the United States without legal status will be subject to deportation in the future.

FADEL: Well, let's get to what is a crime and what's not. We hear from the administration not just the claims that they're arresting rapists and gang members, but also, they say that anyone in the country without proper paperwork is a criminal. Is that true that being undocumented means you've committed a crime?

RUIZ SOTO: Under immigration law, entering the country without proper authorization is a lower offense compared to those that we colloquially think are criminal convictions in a more criminal system, meaning, for example, murder, rape, drug abuse or something else like that that could get it to be higher.

FADEL: What do we know about the other two-thirds of these arrests? Do they all have criminal histories?

RUIZ SOTO: No. Among the other two-thirds, about half of those are actually people with a criminal pending charge but not yet proven guilty. Of those that do have a criminal conviction, we know from previous reports from ICE and experience that we've done research on that the majority of those criminal convictions tend to be traffic violations or lower-level offenses.

FADEL: Was that surprising to you?

RUIZ SOTO: I didn't think it was surprising because it's been happening over months. I think the visibility has been surprising. And perhaps the other aspect of this that has been also not transparent is this is just for ICE arrests. We don't know yet how many arrests are being made by Border Patrol across the different cities they're now targeting to consider the full impact of this new enforcement.

FADEL: What has this meant for immigrant communities, mixed-status communities and families when it comes to their presence in the United States and their relationship with law enforcement and the government?

RUIZ SOTO: Well, the direct impact is on those people that are here without status. Many of them are not going outside their homes. But I think the bigger impact here is that mixed-status families are also affected. The fact, for example, that families may forgo seeking benefits that are eligible for their U.S. citizen children because they're afraid of potentially being detained or arrested, that actually has implications for U.S. citizens and many of these citizens. In fact, 5.3 million U.S. citizen children have one parent who is undocumented in the United States, and that could actually make a significant difference in their separation.

FADEL: What would you say to people listening who say, well, I mean, people should not have entered without status, and this is the consequence?

RUIZ SOTO: Well, it's clear that migrants who are here without status are subject to deportation and arrest, but people have access to due process. They need to have an opportunity to present their claims to why they should stay in the United States. And if in the end of that litigation, it is determined that the person has to leave the United States, and that should be the case.

FADEL: Ariel Ruiz Soto is a senior policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute. Thank you so much for your time.

RUIZ SOTO: Thank you.

FADEL: We reached out to ICE for comment and have not heard back. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

On Monday, Los Angeles travels back in time. Well, sort of.

The Varnish, the famed speakeasy hidden behind a secret door at the back of Cole’s French Dip, will be reconstituted for one night only as part of a special pop-up at Firstborn in Chinatown.

(Meanwhile, Cole's itself will be open through the holiday season, with its last night of regular service planned for Dec. 31.)

The iconic bar, which shuttered in 2024 after a 15-year run, holds a special place in the hearts of many Angelenos, who believe it's where L.A.’s modern cocktail revival truly began. The event reunites three bartenders who all came up through The Varnish’s famously exacting school of cocktail-making. Kenzo Han (recently named Esquire’s Bartender of the Year) cut his teeth there before moving into roles that established him as one of L.A.’s most respected classic-cocktail technicians. Wolf Alexander and Miles Caballes emerged from the same pipeline.

One night only

Kenzo Han, bar director at Firstborn and former Varnish bartender, is hosting two fellow Varnish alumni for the Monday pop-up.

(

Ron De Angelis

)

Han is now Firstborn’s bar director, where he leads a tight, classics-leaning bar program. The restaurant sits inside Mandarin Plaza, where chef Anthony Wang turns out playful comfort dishes with Chinese and American influences. It’s a lively, unfussy neighborhood hangout just off Broadway, surrounded by neon, noodle shops and family-style restaurants.

The Varnish connection

All three bartenders trace their lineage back to Sasha Petraske, who, in 2009, co-founded The Varnish with Eric Alperin and Cedd Moses, the owner of Cole’s French Dip.

Petraske traded '90s flash for pre-Prohibition craft: fresh citrus over sour mix, precise technique over bottle tricks, elevating cocktails from party fuel to art form.

Miles Caballes brings his Varnish training back to the bar for one night.

(

Courtesy Firstborn

)

Wolf Alexander, another Varnish alum, demonstrates the precise technique that defined the speakeasy's approach.

(

Courtesy Firstborn

)

The Varnish became the city’s clearest expression of Petraske’s cocktail philosophy, where his playbook of precision, restraint and quiet hospitality took root on the West Coast. (Petraske passed in 2015.)

Han, Alexander and Caballes all trained in that environment, absorbing the Petraske rules of clean builds, tight technique and no-nonsense cocktails.

What to expect

For one night only, from 6-10 p.m., the trio will channel that tradition through a Varnish-style menu: curated classics only, no custom builds, with all cocktails priced at $20. Two featured drinks nod directly to the bar's lineage. The Spring Blossom — created at The Varnish — combines mezcal, French aperitifs, including Suze and Lillet Blanc, mole bitters and a grapefruit twist. Death & Taxes features scotch, gin, sweet vermouth, Benedictine (a herbal liqueur), Angostura and orange bitters, finished with a lemon twist.

On the food side, chef Anthony Wang is reviving his cult-favorite Blood Orange Chicken Sando ($20), served with radicchio, alongside a limited run of his Shanghainese-style McRib ($24) — a playful, sweet-and-sour riff built around tender ribs and “all the stuff” that made the original such a guilty pleasure.

The blood orange chicken sandwich at Firstborn from chef Anthony Wang.

(

Ron De Angelis

)

Expect a casual, walk-in-only atmosphere where guests can grab a seat at the bar and let the cocktail nostalgia wash over them.

Whether you were a Varnish regular or only heard the stories, this pop-up is a rare chance to see that style alive again — familiar faces, bespoke cocktails and the kind of muscle-memory bartending that defined an era of L.A. drinking culture. For newer drinkers, it’s a glimpse of the cocktail philosophy that shaped the city as we know it.

It’ll likely get busy early, and the food specials may run out fast — but that’s part of the charm. The Varnish’s legacy has always been about small rooms, sharp precision and moments you catch only if you’re paying attention.

In the city of Los Angeles, neighbors or homeowner groups who choose to fight approvals of new housing are required to pay a fee when filing an appeal.

Right now, that fee is $178 — about 1% of the amount the city says it costs to process the appeal. But that fee soon will go up.

On Wednesday, the L.A. City Council voted to increase the fee to $229 but rejected a proposal by the city administrative officer that would have raised the cost for appellants to more than $22,800, or 100% of the cost.

Some advocates for making housing easier to build argued the city should have adopted the higher fee.

“Appeals of approved projects create delays that make it harder to build housing and disincentivize future housing from being proposed,” said Jacob Pierce, a policy associate with the group Abundant Housing L.A.

At a time when L.A.’s budget is strained, Pierce said, if someone thinks a project was wrongly approved, “They should put their money where their mouth is and pay the full fee."

The City Council unanimously approved another new fee structure put forward by the city’s Planning Department.

While fees will remain relatively low for housing project opponents, developers will have to pay $22,453 to appeal projects that previously had been denied.

A November report from the city administrative officer said setting fees higher to recover the full cost of processing would have aligned with the city’s financial policies. Generally, fees are set higher when applicants are asking for a service that benefits them alone.

“When a service or activity benefits the public at large, there is generally little to no recommended fee amount,” the report said.

Pierce said he hoped a City Council committee would reconsider the higher fee proposal next year. With the city falling far short of its goal to create nearly a half-million new homes by 2029, he said the city needs to discourage obstruction of new housing.

“Slowing down the construction of housing is expensive for all of us,” Pierce said.

Los Angeles could become the first city in the U.S. to ban ink cartridges that can be used only once.

The L.A. City Council unanimously voted Wednesday to approve the creation of an ordinance that prohibits their sale. The move comes after more than a year of debate over the terms.

Why the potential ban

This builds upon the city’s effort to reach zero waste, including phasing out single-use plastics. You’re likely familiar with some of those efforts — such as only getting plastic foodware by request and banning single-use carryout bags at stores. Multiple plastic bans have been suggested, like for single-use vapes and bag clips, but now it’s ink’s turn.

The cartridges are tough to dispose of because of the plastic, metal and chemicals inside, according to the city. They’re also classified as regulated waste in the state because they can leach toxic substances into the environment, such as volatile organic compounds and heavy metals.

That poses a problem. L.A.’s curbside recycling program can’t recycle the cartridges, and while its hazardous waste program can take them, a significant portion end up in landfills.

Major printer manufacturers and some ink retailers have take-back programs for used cartridges so they can get refilled. However, L.A. Sanitation says there are certain single-use cartridges that don’t have recovery programs. These are usually cartridges that work with a printer but aren’t name brand.

How outlawing them could work

LASAN has spent months figuring out what a ban would cover — and it hasn’t been without pushback. The city’s energy and environment committee pressed the department back in September on how effective a ban would be.

Ultimately, the committee moved it forward with a promise that LASAN would come back with more details, including environmental groups’ stance, concrete data to back up the need and a public education plan.

The department’s current recommendation is that the ordinance should prohibit retail and online establishments from selling any single-use ink cartridge, whether sold separately or with a printer, to people in the city. Retailers that don’t follow the rules would get fined.

So what does single-use mean here? The ban would affect a printer cartridge that:

• is not collected or recovered through a take-back program
• cannot be remanufactured, refilled or reused
• infringes upon intellectual property rights or violates any applicable local, state or federal law

Any cartridges that meet one of these points would fall under the ban, though you still could get them outside L.A.

The proposed ordinance will go to the committee first while LASAN works on a public education plan.

If it ends up getting approved by the full council, the ban likely would go into full effect 12 months later.