CORRESPONDENCE - 75B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SheppardMullin City Cound September 2, 2014 Page 3 than June 2, 2014 under the Planning & Zoning laws. Jurisdiction over the Council action, and its finality, transferred to the Court once TOOC challenged the Council's decision. Even if TOOC had not timely challenged the decision, it was final for all purposes other than formal amendment or revocation. The Staff Request for Action for this hearing flatly states "the City Council took final action" on March 4, 2014. (Agenda Packet 7513-2.) The City has adopted procedures for changing or revoking an administrative decision and it is not following any of them. Amendment of a tract map must be at the request of the owner, while revocation must meet specified criteria and standards. The City is not even pretending to be altering its earlier decision, and there is no procedure for "updating" a bad decision by adopting after - the -fact Findings under the City's Code. In effect, the proposed "consideration" is an admission the City did not have adequate findings to support its earlier decision, so it hopes to correct the inadequacies without following appropriate procedures. In this case, the proper procedure would be for the City to admit in Court that its original findings were inadequate, that the demolition permit issued for the Orchard was improperly granted and the approvals must be side aside by the Court. The City has already filed an answer asserting the original approval was proper. Under these circumstances, the City does not have the option of keeping the approvals in effect while attempting to correct or expand the record. The Public Hearing Noticed For September 2, 2014 Is A Sham The City filed a Notice of Determination for the tract map and variance on March 5, 2014. The Notice stated that Findings were made under CEQA and the project was approved on March 4' (Exhibit) The City does not have legal authority to revisit the tract map decision for the purpose of improving the previous Findings. There is no remaining administrative decision for the City Council to make — it has already decided to approve the poorly- conceived tract map and the Request for Council Action does not identify any circumstances under which the fundamental development decision can or will be revisited. In the simplest possible terms, the City does not have the power to change its mind on the tract map approval after six months. The City Council has already made findings and, unless the City is willing to acknowledge they were inadequate and accept the Conservancy's claims in Court, the law prevents after - the -fact findings and other actions. Unless the City Council can lawfully reject the tract map and variance at this hearing, the entire action is a sham designed solely for litigation advantage. Conclusion Reconsidering a tract map approval more than five months after it became final is outside the City's authority. Padding an administrative record with newly- created findings after a lawsuit has already been filed is an express violation of CEQA. The Council no longer has the administrative power to modify the approved tract map for the Sexlinger Orchard or to add new matter to the administrative record. If the City truly believes the original findings were