Correspondence- #21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers City of Santa Ana October 13, 2022 Page 5 of 7 delay, (a) the City apparently failed to include the Tenants United "redline" changes correspondence in the public correspondence posted along with the staff report, (which included other correspondence from other stakeholders sent at the same time), (b) the City considered, discussed, and adopted in part some of those revisions, and (c) the City adopted those revisions upon a first reading without the opportunity of the public to know or respond to the substance and rationale contained in the Tenants United correspondence. Mayor Sarmiento advanced a conflicted theory, effectively disregarding the Brown Act: As many lawyers will do, we will disagree... I do disagree with you Madam City Attorney, on the revisions that were just suggested by councilmember Pham, because I do think that they are an extension of what was just asked of us, especially on the composition of the Board, and some clarity on some of the other provisions on the registry fee, and so I do think they are worthy of qualifying still, or at least being considered a first reading because these are just a revision of the provisions and terns that were provided to us, especially because there was a redline version of changes submitted to us in advance of the meeting. Comments by Mayor Sarmiento, City of Santa Ana City Council Meeting October 4, 2022, 5:56.30, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v—Cq.6b2JtGLxl&t=21389s The City Attorney asked the Clerk whether and when the redline [prepared by Tenants United] was circulated with the agenda for "transparency and public notice."' The City Clerk confirmed the redline was not circulated at all to the public. The Mayor failed to acknowledge that the public had not had the benefit of reviewing the revised legislative draft provided to the City by an outside commenter —effectively depriving the public of the opportunity to continent on those changes and the related rationale at the hearing and "first reading."' This oversight both undermines any appearance of an impartial and transparent jurisdiction —where a tenant's rights group apparently has a direct, privileged line of communication to the City Council that is also shielded in part from public review. These grounds are in addition to those grounds previously s Comments by City Attorney Sonia Carvalho, City of Santa Ana City Council Meeting October 4, 2022: 5:56:30, available at: litt s://tvww. outube.conv'watch?v=C 6b2JtGLxl&t=21400s 9 The Mayor attempted to narrow the redlined changes to "citation" and suggested the redline changes were merely clarifications within the vein of the previous guidance. In response, the City Attorney appeared to re -cast her comments that her sole concern was whether the City Staff could "accurately capture" the comments —but again failing to reconcile that the documents were not made available to the public without delay pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 54957.5(a). The Mayor concluded that there was nothing new, despite that changes were being implemented pursuant to a revision sent to the City Council, without the opportunity for the public to review. /VolumeslShared/Kingsley Management Company/700 Litigation/Kingsley V City Of Santa Anal010 Correspondence12022.10-13 Correspondence To City Regarding Implementation OFRent Board V&,Doex