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 9 of 10 provided herein and in the records for the hearings related to this matter, the coordination with and consideration of the requirements of the rental unit owners has not been welcomed or considered. H. This is standard boiler plate language, which has now been discussed and it has been established since September 2021 to the present date Opposing Agenda Item 21, that the facts and law do not support the 2022 Ordinance as implemented and drafted nor the proposed Amendment to said ordinance. I. This is standard boiler plate language, which has now been discussed and the record has established since September 2021 to the present date Opposing Agenda Item 21 that the facts and law do not support the 2022 Ordinance as implemented and drafted nor the proposed Amendment to said ordinance. J. The only citizen or interested party "testimony" the City Council will deem required to establish the necessary Findings is "oral testimony." The City Council will not consider the record from the other hearings, written testimony, contradicting documents among other customary and ordinary acceptance of evidence related to findings. submitted for consideration and as a basis for this Amendment to the Ordinance. This requirement further invalidates the Notice of the Meeting and the Agenda. Section 2. This is boilerplate customary language, except the modification to limit the record to those persons who provide oral testimony with limited time for presentation. The truth of the recitals and statements of fact need to be established through the record. The assumption is that the goal of "truthfulness" is being advanced by only permitting oral testimony with time limits which by necessity excludes contrary documentary or detailed evidence and relies on the Staff Report and attachments. Section 3. As to the substance of each section, except Section 7 of the RSO JCEO, the opposition, objections and other assertions related to each of the provisions, including those provisions listed here, have been incorporated into this Record and are set forth in the pending litigation, which public record portion of the litigation record has likewise been incorporated into this Record. As to Section 7, this prohibition on legislative action by a future council is questionable and from a literal reading prohibits compliance with Federal and State statutes including the implementing regulations and case law interpretations and orders as applicable as of this writing and as may be amended from time to time. For the reasons set forth above, there has been no justification, evidence or other basis for requiring a supermajority vote to amend the RSO JACO Ordinance presented.