Correspondence - Closed Session #3E

Home Browse Search

County city has occurred. Further, there has not been a public update that I can remember on this case. The public should have confidence that when our council says something should happen, that it does happen. Now, there may be a perfectly good reason for this lengthy delay. However, at least provide an update to the residents so we know that this has not been forgotten. Request for Action I ask that the city provide an update to the public on this item. There were multiple residents who spoke in favor of this item almost 3'/: years ago- which for a closed session item, as you know, is not all that common. There are those on this council who were not even in public office at that time. Further, our own city legend, Peter Katz, spoke on this item encouraging action- he is just one voice, but one that always seemed to be relatively in touch with the community. The public deserves to hear an update. The newly elected councilmembers also deserve to hear residents voices on this item if there has been a change of direction by the council. Below is a picture of the applicable section of the minutes from that vote btw for your reference (in the attached also): CLOSED SESSION ITEMS - The Brown Act permits legislative bodies to discuss certain matters without members of the public present. The City Council finds, based on advice from the City Attorney, that discussion in open session of the following matters will prejudice the position of the City in existing and anticipated litigation: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL --EXISTING LITIGATION pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code: El. The OraniAe County Catholic Worker, at aL v City of Santa Ana United States District Court for the Central District of CA (S.D.), Case No.: 8:17 — cv-01340 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — INITIATION OF LITIGATION pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code: One Case — Potential Action Against Multiple parties. City Council authorized staff to file a cross complaint against all cities in Orange County and the County of Orange over the impact of homelessness in the City of Santa Ana, by a 6-0 vote (Tinajero absent). It is time for the council to follow through on its vote to sue or to have a public discussion in an open forum on its decision not to proceed. Part of filing a cross complaint it to actually serve the cities of Orange County which simply has not happened outside of the three cities who settled out of the litigation and quite honestly were likely the least of the concerned parties. If it has been determined to not follow through on a prior vote by the city council, this should, even if not legally required, be done at the direction of the council through an agendized item allowing the public to comment on such item. Further, a vote should be had and announcement of such vote and action. If this agenda item is a vote to change the prior council direction, I urge you to reconsider, vote no, and/or provide the public an opportunity to know what you will be discussing so that appropriate public input may be given. Additionally, we need the County to actually respond to the cross complaint. With the indefinite response timeline from July 2018, it is unfair to the residents to have to wait that long just to get a response from the lawsuit. Part of filing a cross complaint is following through with the litigation process. Allowing a delay of over 3 years for responding to the cross complaint is beyond a natural progression of this case it feels from a resident's perspective. Further, it is time to actually serve the South County cities with the lawsuit. It was voted by the council in April of 2018, after public comments on this item, to initiate this litigation against the county and all other cities. it was not limited to the county, Anaheim, Tustin, and Orange. Without the city serving these cities, there is effectively no lawsuit against these cities. The time to serve the suit and request response is well past time, but it can be rectified by the city abiding by the closed session vote from April 25, 2018.