CORRESPONDENCE - 60D - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RIhay .L. n to not n"%c k'wvsard A ith the detrkapuxrx of the -019 rrnjecr, Dw Ir] ,IFsrnttrc Ck.rn W i In TtW .,,%runt .-aused h} the ['01, 6W 19 parta tntr. Rk sakes am pnat3u have Jihi.r.11'.I P.m I k lv.•r.:i...w kl t%,ytr ru,. nliW Ik N wrt NNA grner,nrng any rw'x+nx. %#idle Rk pawl JIIe%Pn1111+..1n11JIrrrf cnn;+>,•rcr ..akc,lbkcelotc, by tltir.letler.ltf hereby rryuesrt,Ila t L:N Counctl k, t,yc anti :h. _u l A.6 a eoaduaa pmedmr to RPa rngwn dbr tnereiMian of the 21119 Alrprovuln, the t'ay Ctic. rl is sn Vprovr rhr waknnent nprcrrnrnt rMeh has bean tradwd het%me XF and the L'tty. This i' omblio a Fti"Cr tit uaay tic :1 al all, w k-iy by RF. If dse City docs not a"ove dbc sett9c wW apectatut. dtea RF'r request to rercrad the 2019 4ppn*vales is harehy withdra%0 Vcr% ttul +- Ili%.. Rnsull .-, ttls. tti-rte.uitx Ilsdl;c Song l' a;ho. 1. cy. Alma s WtrtFI 1. k+q Once again, the City as part of some scheme with RF, is attempting deprive my Clients of their due process rights by failing to give proper notice to allow my Clients to prepare for and present evidence and argument regarding RF's proposal and the City's response, including the City's attempt to include unnecessary, unrequested and legally invalid "findings" including but not limited to the following, all of which are without evidentiary support, including without limitation, the following: 1. The characterization and purported finding that the Russell Fischer project —which was revised after the 2018 approvals to "substitute" a car wash in place of the retail building, and which the Court in the Lawsuit has already indicated appears to be part of the same project —as two separate projects (draft resolution 2020, p. 1, § 1); 2. The characterization and purported finding that RF's request to "rescind" the 2019 approvals is because "the 2019 Project is no longer financially feasible," (p. 2, § 1, 9 I), when the reason for the request —and the reason why approval of the secret settlement agreement between RF and the City is a "condition precedent" to the request to rescind is that the Court has found that my clients are likely to prevail in the lawsuit, he has stayed development with the need for posting of a bond, and he has determined that my clients can conduct discovery, including taking depositions, regarding the relationship between Mayor Pulido and RF's permit expediter, which created a conflict of interest; 3. The entirety of Section 3 that purports to make findings about the 2018 Approvals, the impact of the adoption of the 2019 Approvals on the 2018 Approvals, and the effect of the proposed rescission on both the 2018 and 2019 approvals. (p. 3, § 3.) Russell Fischer did not request that the City take any action or make any findings related to the 2018 Approvals in his purported request. There is no legitimate reason for making any of the findings in Section 3 because these are all matters that are at issue in the Lawsuit, and which a court, and not the City Council must decide. As you are well aware, the rescission of the subject approvals directly impacts —and is tied to —the pending litigation against the City, which my Clients were forced because the City refused to comply with their obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City's municipal code, and the Public Records Act to the detriment not only of my Clients, but public at grant-law.net