CORRESPONDENCE - 75B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SheppardMullin City Council September 2, 2014 Page 2 The decision to authorize destruction of the 5 -acre Orchard relied on highly questionable and internally contradictory information in the administrative record. The after - the -fact findings proposed for adoption do not resolve these contradictions; they simply use more self- serving language than the original findings. The bottom line remains the same: the City has traded a unique historic resource for a handful of high -end houses without considering whether feasible alternatives could avoid or mitigate the impact. The Findings Are Not Supported By Substantial Evidence The after - the -fact Findings restate and embellish the information in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the tract map and variance. However, they do not provide any new substantial evidence to support the City's original improper decision to ignore feasible alternatives when approving demolition of the Sexlinger Orchard. In fact, the after - the -fact Findings ignore evidence submitted at the March 4`" City Council meeting that the Council was operating under a serious misunderstanding of fact. The Minutes for the March 4th City Council meeting reveal that four of the Councilmembers concluded that no funding was available to purchase the Sexlinger property for increased preservation. (Exhibit) Mayor Pro Tern Tinajero and Councilmember Benavides explained that the Conservancy had been given more than two years to acquire the property, without result. Councilmember Sarmiento stated that property rights need to be respected and Councilmember Amezcua stated affirmatively that no funding to develop or maintain the area was available. These statements were incorrect, based on information in the record. The Conservancy offered testimony, both written and verbal, that a cash offer of more than $2 million was made for the property by the Conservancy in 2013 and again before the hearing in 2014. Since that time, the Conservancy has more than doubled its cash offer for the property in writing, well exceeding its market value. The property owners' refusal to accept a cash offer does not affect the fact that preservation options were feasible when the EIR was drafted, and continue to be feasible now. The Agenda for this meeting simply adds another layer of confusion. It states: "For additional information please visit: http: / /www.santa- ana.org /pba /planning/ SexlingerFarmhouseand Orchard.asp." (Exhibit) Among the environmental documents listed on the website are the "Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations." (Exhibit) These Findings of Fact were in existence prior to March 4, 2014 and have been prominently displayed on the website consistently since that time. (Exhibit) These Findings of Fact are not the findings proposed for adoption this evening, but there is no indication of that fact on the website. The actual Findings of Fact are buried at page 547 of the Agenda packet for the Council hearing. The City Council No Longer Has Power To Add Findings To The Record The City Council certified the Final EIR and approved the tract map and variance on March 4, 2014. The Resolution stated in Section 5 that the decision is "final" and subject to review under the California Code of Civil Procedure. The time for challenging the EIR expired on or about April 4, 2014 under CEQA. The time for challenging the tract map and variance expired no later