Correspondence - Non Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case 8:23-cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/20/23 Page 28 of 45 Page ID #:28 1 107. Representatives of SOS also appeared in person at the February 7, 2023 2 City Council meeting, and reiterated SOS's opposition to the Permanent Ordinance, and 3 its request that the public hearing be reopened. The City Council refused to reopen the 4 public hearing, and approved the Permanent Ordinance. 5 108. Attached as Exhibit E hereto is a true and correct copy of section 41-313.5 6 of the City's Municipal Code, as enacted by the Urgency Ordinance and the Permanent 7 Ordinance. 8 109. On Wednesday, February 8, 2023, City staff sent an e-mail to Turner 9 regarding its Resubmitted Application. In that e-mail, staff ignore state law and claimed 10 that, under the City's charter, the Urgency Ordinance has "immediate and lasting 11 effect," and thus "the development project and conditional use permit processes are still 12 applicable." A true and correct copy of the City staff s February 8, 2023 e-mail is 13 attached hereto as Exhibit F. 14 110. Later that day, counsel for SOS submitted a letter to the City Attorney, 15 Sonia Carvalho, explaining that because Government Code section 65858(a) explicitly 16 states that it applies to charter cities, City Staff statement and refusal to process the 17 application are plainly contrary to California law. The letter then requested that the City 18 Attorney explain why the application could not be processed and a building permit 19 issued before the Permanent Ordinance takes effect. 20 111. The City Attorney responded by asserting (without citation to any 21 authority) that the City's charter allows urgency ordinances to take immediate effect. 22 Again, this ignores the fact that Government Code section 65858(a)provides for a 45- 23 day expiration date for such urgency ordinances, and expressly states that charter cities 24 are subject to the provisions of section 65858. 28 Complaint of Share Our Selves