Correspondence - #21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C. City of Santa Ana City Council c/o Office of City Clerk City of Santa Ana August 28, 2023 Page 3 of 10 In addition to the violations of the Brown Act and Ordinance Enactment Code, violations of the Political Reform Act, Gov't. Code sections 81000 et seq. have occurred.' Based on the Record, as incorporated below, the Agenda Item 21 description at disparity with the Staff Report thereto, and the focus on a single group in the materials and proposed Ordinance, it appears some elected officials and City staff fail to comply with the City of Santa Ana — Code of Ethics and Conduct, generally, but specifically, (i) to be "honest with my fellow elected officials, the public and others; (ii) to not "give special treatment or consideration to any individual or group beyond that available to any other individual; (iii) to promote meaningful public involvement in the decision making process, and (iv) "treat all persons, claims and transactions in a fair and equitable manner. Based on this Opposition to Agenda Item 21, along with all other oppositions submitted in opposition to Agenda Item 21 by other interested Parties, and each said opposition is incorporated herein by this reference as part of the record on Agenda Item 21, no action may be taken and the request in Agenda Item 21 must be denied for the reasons set forth herein and as presented by others in Opposition to Agenda Item 21 due to the improper Notice, inaccurate description of the Agenda Item 21 contained in the Notice and the Agenda, and consideration in a "Special Meeting of the City Council." Further, consideration and approval of the proposed Ordinance at this hearing will violate the Brown Act, as explained in detail above. This matter is not properly before the City Council for consideration and should not be heard. STAFF REPORT The Staff Report for Agenda Item 21 is a well -crafted political piece. There are no factual or legal basis provided in support of the action requested by Agenda Item 21. It appears to seek the protection of a Proposition without the expense and effort required. It further appears to disregard the changing State and Federal legislation and case law in these and related areas of law. Acknowledged in the first paragraph is confirmation of the continuing bias against the property owners. The 2021 Ordinances Numbers 3009 and 3010 ("2021 Ordinances") were negotiated and written in conjunction with a closed committee of Councilmembers, staff and representatives of renters. Property owners were not included in these closed meetings and received the Notice of the Ordinance with the Agenda for the September 21, 2021 City Council Hearing. Certain of the councilmembers were likewise excluded with ' For obligations to disclose personal interests or abstain from participating in the subject matter of the proposed City action: California Code of Regulations ("CCR" ), Title 2, Division 6, sections 18702(a), (a)(5), (c)(1-4). In additional to the public record incorporated herein, the City records related to disclosure, including without limitation the Form 700s through 2022 (2023 form 700s were not available on line) are hereby incorporated as though fully set forth and the political positions and promises to the electorate to obtain votes, which political promises are best exemplified former Mayor Sarmiento stating from the diesis on September 21, 2021, video record at approximately 6:25 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. in response to the Motion to send the Ordinance back to staff to consider the Amendments to Ordinance Nos.