CORRESPONDENCE - #17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

At hour 6, minute 19, the City Clerk referred to written communications, but failed to outline the concerns raised by the letter. At hour 6, minute 20, Daisy Cruz from the Kennedy Commission spoke in favor of the amendments. See the notes above regarding the Kennedy Commission and Commissioner Ramos. At hour 6, minute 22, Ana Charco, of Latino Health Access, another one of Commissioner Ramos' listed sources of income, spoke in favor of the amendments. The City Attorney At hour 6, minute 25, Mayor Sarmiento asks the City Attorney about the attached letter. The City Attorney states that there was no conflict of interest because "there was no economic interest at stake" and that there is a difference between a legislative decision and adjudicative decisions. It is stated that the HOO was a legislative act and therefore there is no bias. This legal opinion is not supported by the caselaw nor by common sense. This legal opinion appears to be the case of a City Attorney counting the votes on the Council and arriving at the legal opinion which supports the majority of the Council. To argue that there is no economic interest at stake or bias is preposterous reasoning by the City Attorney and cannot withstand the simplest of common sense. At the City Council hearing on the amendments,there were only 8 total speakers on the item. 5 had comments about the process and the need for more input. Only 3 were in support of the amendments proffered by Commissioner Ramos. Of these, all 3 are the sources of income listed on Ramos' statement of economic interests. NOT A SINGLE PERSON NOT APPEARING ON RAMOS' STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE HOO AMENDMENTS AT THE NOVEMBER 16, 2021 MEETING. To call the HOO ordinance an issue of general interest is to misstate the facts of this issue. The HOO ONLY effects developers of housing in the City of Santa Ana. The fact that the exaction occurs before a specific project can negotiate the specifics of that particular project DOES NOT change the fact that this amendment to the HOO directly affects the due process of residential developers in the City of Santa Ana. Councilwoman Thai Phan Doubles Down on the Conflicts of Interest At Hour 6, minute 35, Councilwoman Thai Phan dismisses the conflict of interest and echoes the tortured logic of the City Attorney. A practicing City Attorney herself, Phan apparently doesn't understand that a conflict of interest is not excused based on an item being legislative rather than quasi- judicial. There is simply no premise for the concept that legislative acts do not have conflicts of interest and to argue such is to turn the entire Government Code section on its head. As an aside, Councilmember Thai Phan is an attorney at the law firm of Rutan &Tucker which represents many residential developers directly affected by the HOO amendments. So, it comes at no surprise that she doesn't understand conflicts of interest because she herself likely has one which should separately recuse her from her participation in this matter. Conflicts of interest do not say that a decision maker with a conflict of interest can only participate if they vote against the interests of their clients, it is a total bar to participation. It would be unbelievable for Phan to argue that her firm's numerous developer clients would hypothetically have nothing to do with her cutting the fee to $0 to benefit her clients, but she appears to believe that voting to increase the fee (and adding a completely illegal condition of mandating "skilled and trained workforce" for all housing beginning in 2025) has no economic impact on her firm's clients. Attached to this complaint and to the subsequent complaint 2