Correspondence - #27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C. Santa Ana Mayor and Council Members c/o City Clerk October 3, 2023 Page 4 of 6 These Options are presented in the Alternative: Either adopt Option 2 or Option 3. OPTION 2 Resolution Affirming Prior Adoption of Ordinance NS-3027 OPPOSITION: REQUEST TAKE NO ACTION The Option to approve the current version of the Ordinance is "presented by staff ...in order to affirm the former Council's action and cure against allegations concerning the validity of the adoption of the Ordinance. In summary, the goal is to affirm the actions of the prior council in the adoption of an Ordinance which remains in violation of the various State and Federal statutes including the implementing regulations and case law. The assumption is this is an effort to attempt a defense of "mootness" related to the pending litigation and among other allegations, the continuing violations of the Brown Act and the violations of Federal statutes constitutional issue. This proposed attempt to "cover" for prior actions of other city council persons and staff, by affirming their adoption of a defective Ordinance further enhances the challenges to the City's actions. This action does not correct the defects in the Ordinance highlighted at the City Council Hearing, October 4, 2022, the City Council disregarded the Judson, City Housing Division Manager, explanation that there was a lack of evidence in support of an imbalanced [rent] Boards, stating "Based on our research of other jurisdictions, there aren't other jurisdictions with an imbalanced board ... where there's either more tenants or more landlords. There is a reason for that. We found in our research that most boards are equitably balanced between tenants and landlords and that serves the best interest of tenants and landlords as they are following the due process rights under the law.4 The "affirmation" of this Ordinance likewise will not erase the violations of the Government Code sections enacted to protect the public. Therefore, affirming the existing Ordinance affirms its provisions contrary to law and endorses the actions exhibited at hearings and reasonably assumed behind the scenes of the enactment of this Ordinance and the other prior and continuing related Ordinances. Based on the Record of this matter and for the foregoing reasons, the request is to TAKE NO ACTION. OR OPTION 3 Adopt the Resolution Amending Ordinance NS-3027 OPPOSITION: REQUEST TAKE NO ACTION The amendment proposed is to require two-thirds (2/3) council members' approval for specific changes to Ordinance NS-3027. The detailed legal and factual Opposition to the amendment was presented to the council on August 29, 2023 and September 19, 2023 by among others, correspondence a Comments by Councilmember Pham and Judson Brown, City Council Meeting, Oct. 4, 2022, 5:48:35 to 5:51. W[� a;.w.UU kl'C ?C �Ju� u`�_UI!G w x �'h7— 01) 2. See, also Correspondence from LoftinlBedell P.C. dated October 13, 2022, in Opposition to Hearing, Oct. 18, 2022, Item 21; also, Correspondence from LoftinlBedell P.C. and Dowdall Law dated September 19 and August 29 in Opposition to City Council Hearing, Agenda Item 21, KMC700426.CCH9.3.2023