My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 55B
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2020
>
10/06/2020
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 55B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/12/2020 2:57:34 PM
Creation date
10/6/2020 4:20:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
10/6/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
86
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Similarly, the City Council should not attempt to make any findings about the force and effect of any prior approvals, or <br />whether those approvals were affected by the adoption of the 2019 approvals or anything else. The 2018 approvals are not <br />before you today. As you all should have learned in your first year civics’ class, the role of the City Council is to pass laws and <br />it is the rule of the Courts to interpret those laws. Judge Wilson has already described the City's position that the 2018 <br />entitlements and environmental mitigation measures were not "somehow set aside" or abandoned. In describing the City's <br />attempted explanation, Judge Wilson bluntly stated : "that's what I would call a linguistic explanation for something that <br />otherwise on its face on the documents themselves is completely contradictory" and the explanation could not be reconciled <br />"with the documents themselves where that provision is deliberately struck through" as part of the 2019 approvals. (SANE v. <br />City of Santa Ana, Case No. 30-2019-01104316, Transcript of Proceedings, June 18, 2020, pp. 8:19-9:26.) Judge Wilson was <br />incredulous that no reasonable person would look at the resolution and think they are required to comply with the mitigation <br />measures from the MND and MMRP. And it is by virtue of the poison pill provision included in each of the 2018 approvals <br />that striking mitigation as a condition caused each of the other approvals to become invalid. <br /> <br />The City Council should not approve the current resolution without removing these unnecessary and meritless <br />statements. Including these statements in this resolution will ensure that the lawsuit is not moot and that the City and Russell <br />Fischer will face additional litigation--now 100% at the taxpayers’ expense when it was all at Russell Fischer's expense--that it <br />will lose for adopting these spurious so-called findings. The only reason the Council would include these findings is to try to do <br />a favor for Pulido, Wallace and Russell Fischer. Enough favors, it’s time for the City Council to act in the best interest of the <br />City and its constituents. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.