Correspondence - #21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 7 of 10 PROPOSED ORDINANCE The last sentence of the Staff Report provides a plea for adoption: "The amendments to the RSO and JCEO as evidenced in the attached Exhibit A are crucial for ensuring the continuity and longevity of these protections." (Emphasis added.) The amendments to the RSO and JCEO are not evidence that the provisions of the proposed Ordinance amendments are crucial. There is no evidence that the existence of the RSO and JCEO face an immediate threat or distant threat of being repealed. Assuming the pending and future state and/or legislation is passed that alters the City's right to impose certain provisions or case law develops or the pending litigation against the City requires amendments to certain provisions, then changing laws or errors in the City's legislative or regulatory process may result in mandatory revisions to the RSO and JCEO. That leaves the question, why is this amendment to the RSO and JCEO being proposed now as opposed to at a time after the courts decide on the underlying litigation involving these Ordinances? Proposed Ordinance Provisions: Section 1. "The City Council of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows:" A. The Record for the City Council hearings held on September 21, 2021 (due to Brown Act Violations reset first reading to the October 5, 2021 hearing) and October 5, 2021 will show numerous, but if not hundreds of, residents appeared at those hearings. The record will further show that numerous persons in opposition disputed those facts as well as the illegality of many of the provisions proposed in the two Ordinances passed violated Federal and State statutes including their implementing regulations and case law interpreting and analyzing those laws. The Record will further show that the Ordinances were developed in a closed City Council Hearing that did not include all of the councilmembers or any representatives of the various types of landlords and property. The record will further show, as presented, the matter violated the Brown Act and based upon the conduct and statements of the then -Mayor in refusing to consider a motion to continue the matter that the matter had to be voted on that night because "that's why we were elected." The record will further show that the adoption of the Ordinance was placed on the consent calendar for October 19, 2021 and adopted notwithstanding requests to remove it from the consent calendar and ignored the opposition to its adoption submitted for that hearing. For a full understanding of the irregularity of the Adoption of these two Ordinances, see the Record. B. This is a statement of the adoption of the RSO and JCEO, as two Ordinances. C. No evidence was provided to support the findings in Ordinance No. NS_3009 and NS-3010 that significant rent increases had occurred. In fact, the rent increase history and financials related thereto for mobilehome parks were presented establishing the average rent increase had been 3% to 4%. The blanket statement that this finding "significant rent increases" was true in 2021 and