CORRESPONDENCE - 55B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orozco, Norma From:Kara Grant <kara@grant-law.net> Sent:Tuesday, October 06, 2020 4:01 PM To:eComment Subject:Comments Re City Council Hearing 10/6/20 Attachments:Al Bushala Decl.pdf; Bushala v. Alvarado Smith - COMPLAINT.pdf; Bushala v. Alvarado Smith - COMPLAINT\[1\].pdf; Pulido email to Wallace re SANE appeal October 2019.pdf; Pulido Form 700 Santa Ana 2020.pdf; Pulido Form 700 Supervisor 2019.pdf; KGL - Comments to City Council Re Rescinding Approvals - FINAL - 091520.pdf Importance:High Dear Mayor Pulido and Councilmembers: Mayor Pulido is disqualified from participating or voting on any matters related to the SANE v. City of Santa Ana lawsuit or regarding the Russell Fischer project at 301 and 325 N. Tustin Avenue. You are disqualified from participating or voting Closed Session item 1C, on today's agenda and item 55B on the consent calendar. You are disqualified due to your conflicts of interest--including the same conflicts of interest that disqualified you from participating or voting on the appeal in October 2019. It was the same conflicts of interest that precluded you from participating or voting on the secrete settlement agreement with Russell Fisher at the last hearing as we stated in our prior comments. (We sure hope you did not vote on the settlement agreement with Russell Fischer at the last hearing, item 1D on the closed session agenda from the City Council hearing of September 15, 2019.) The reason why you are so bothered about evidence of your relationship with Wallace being exposed publicly is that you know that it is not kosher for her to be your assistant, best friend, and business partner, while at the same time being highly compensated as a "permit expediter" for the City of Santa Ana, by developers seeking approvals and permits from the City of Santa Ana, for which are mayor, and have been mayor for many years. You know that your relationship with Wallace provides her with influence to get things done at the city because of her close relationship with you (well known within City Hall). You also are conflicted because Wallace's effectiveness at getting her clients' projects approved by the City is the most important factor in whether she has a lucrative consulting business (as she currently has) or not. In addition, you and Wallace were (and still are) business partners in a variety of different enterprises when the Russell Fischer project came before the City Council. It is not permissible for you to participate in any matter on which Wallace is or was a consultant at the City of Santa Ana. Attached are some of the more recent documents showing this improper relationship. In addition to the conflicts of interest existing before, you now have an additional conflict of interest in that you are personally invested--and in fact hired an attorney to make an appearance on your behalf--in preventing discovery into your relationship with Jill Wallace. You have an interest in avoiding your own deposition, and obtaining documents from you including your text messages with Wallace, and preventing us from taking Wallace's deposition and obtaining documents from her as well. We also object to Councilmember Sarmiento participating or voting on Closed Session item 1C, on today's agenda and item 55B on the consent calendar. Councilmember Sarmiento was disqualified from participating or voting on the appeal in October 2019 due to the contributions that Chase Russell made or attempted to make for your benefit and based on the communications you had with him shortly before both the October 2019 hearing and today's hearing where Chase asked you point blank to help him get his project pushed through (and now has asked you to help him once again) shortly before the hearing and you did not refuse to do so. With all do respect, at a minimum, there is the lack of at least the appearance of impartiality and we request that you not participate or vote. For item 55B, Russell Fischer's letter only requests that the City Council rescind the 2019 approvals and all permits and entitlements that it was based on, including the lot line adjustment. That is all you should do today. You should not attempt to make any finding about the reason why Russell Fischer is not pursuing the project, whether it is because of COVID, or it is because the Judge has enjoined the development of the project without bond and indicated that Russell Fischer is likely to lose on the merits on multiple grounds. Russell Fischer has not provided you with any documentation to substantiate its claim that the financial viability of the project has changed for Covid or any other reason. 1