From: G&P Attorneys <attorneys@gopro-law.com>
Date: Thursday, May 16, 2024 at 4:59 PM
To: Bill Ayub <bayub@cityofventura.ca.gov>
Cc: Joe Schroeder <jschroeder@cityofventura.ca.gov>, Council <council@cityofventura.ca.gov>, Miles Hogan <mhogan@cityofventura.ca.gov>, City Clerk <cityclerk@cityofventura.ca.gov>
Subject: -EXT- Re: May 21 item 12
Dear Mr. Ayub: Thank you for your prompt response. I trust all of these communications will be part of the administrative record.
Let me make clear what you are saying to the council on this critical matter:
l. There is no completed Stantec Report.
2. There is a draft of a Stantec Report which you will not provide. You assert that the report must be “reviewed by counsel” before it being provided and that will not happen before the 5/21 council meeting.
3. Staff is going to take one or more tables from the uncompleted and undisclosed Stantec Report or perhaps create staff’s own tables/summaries without backup, and provide it to council right before the 5/21 meeting. Council will not receive the draft report, any data underlying a table, any information on the reports methodology, nor any analysis from the gathering folks relative to the data. Neither will council or the public even have the information surrounding the purported table (s) in order to evaluate what it actually means, its purpose, intent etc. And since all of this will be hidden there is NO opportunity for credible stakeholder review and analysis, nor for peer review of the data thus completely and it appears purposefully obstructingthe ability for the stakeholders, the folks who actually are at risk with MSM continuing, being able to proffer credible expert comments on the “tables” or “data” or contrary opinion to council so that council can carefully weigh the information.
Meanwhile the staff report and proposed Resolution purports to have council weighing the information/evidence and making an informed decision of significance and material consequence. Thus the statement in the Resolution on its face is false and unsupported.
This decision by staff unambiguously will open the city up to very significant inverse condemnation claims from every single property owner on the closed street-claims that are now being prepared. I suggest the council carefully weigh this consequence as it will be material and will be a direct result of this shocking new third theory of your Interim City Attorney–a theory previously rejected by prior City Attorneys. This new theory is only because the PMA blocks the city from that route due solely to staff’s inability to get an EIR done in over three years and staff knowing full well that over 50% of the property owners/voters would reject a PMA proposal from the city; and the safe streets alternative likewise is unavailable. DVO can’t hold the pretextual improperly issued “Special Permit”. So staff, being out of options creates this third previously rejected theory and it is a train wreck.
What was birthed through good intentions as a very short term response to COVID is now fully morphing into a patently illegal and improper closure in violation of the law 4 years later!!!! This is confirmed through the staff report that doesn’t even address: “should this continue”. No sales tax data. No expert opinion. Completely ignoring the process of the council sub committee and ignoring two sub committee meetings where dozens of folks spoke against this continuing. So the response of staff is to ignore all of that, hide everything it can, have council sign off on a completely false statement of consideration of evidence/information, and travel a road of litigation and damages.
If you think I have misunderstood please specify in what manner with some clarity. Otherwise it is crystal clear to me that the staff report presentation of “here’s the data that justifies another year of closure in violation of the Pedestrian Mall Act” and justifies a claim of CEQA exemption is worse than unsupported nonsense, it is without merit whatsoever and the methodology as now made clear is an effort by staff to preclude credible public engagement or review by council itself. I am shocked that the city staff thinks this is in compliance with the law and even perhaps as important, it is a violation of the transparency and ethical obligations to both council and to the stakeholders who are the ones at risk around all of this. Indeed this now confirms that there is NO data or credible evidence for council to “consider” and the staff report/resolution are devoid of legal basis.
I refer you to my earlier email on the proffer of resolution to the city. The city refused to even discuss this as a path forward. The City is now confirming and acknowledging that this new and now third legal theory of your city attorney office is just that, part of a continuing effort to violate the PMA which unambiguously requires a stakeholder vote BEFORE the street is closed. This is disenfranchisement of the voting public at its worst.
Respectfully, all rights are reserved whether enumerated herein or not.
Very truly yours
Peter A Goldenring
Pachowicz | Goldenring APLC
6050 Seahawk St.
Ventura, CA 93003
(805) 642-6702
Fax (805) 642-3145
