Laserfiche WebLink
discussion resulted in item being agendized as rescission and re-approval of <br />DDA. <br />• DDA is a contract that has been approved; the Agency board may not unilaterally <br />rescind the contract, but requires mutual agreement by the developer; first step <br />would be to allow the Agency to rescind contract; if approved, then the Agency <br />may reconsider re-approval. <br />General Counsel Fletcher noted for the record that prior conflict of interest for <br />Agency member Sarmiento was due to clients and other interested in the <br />downtown area affecting only the Transit Zoning Code "TZC" action by the City <br />Council, but zoning issue not being considered and therefore he has not conflict <br />of interest in participating as an Agency member on the DDA; also, any conflicts <br />of interest Agency members Tinajero and Benavides had due to campaign <br />contributions were not related to the DDA or the parties to the DDA and therefore <br />they could participate on the DDA matter.. <br />Steven Dorsey of the Law Offices of Richards, Watson, and Gershon <br />summarized risks and legal implications if the Agency decided on a revote. He <br />strongly recommend not to revote since Agency faces greater legal risks from <br />rescinding or reconsidering the matter, than due to the issue of campaign <br />contributions. Legal reasons for recommendation include: action would open up <br />possibility of additional legal challenges; statute of limitations and ability to <br />challenge previous actions have run out with prior approval and time clock would <br />• start again if re-voted; potentially more lawsuits with additional issues may be <br />filed; questioned how far back to reconsider items; contracting parties have <br />vesting rights and would require their approval to reconsider; properties have <br />been acquired that would be questioned. Mr. Dorsey opined that despite <br />irregularities on the last vote it does not invalidate the vote; The Charter section <br />implicated does not provide for remedy; and chances of being challenged are <br />greater since there are no legal basis for reconsideration in Charter or State law. <br />Agency member Benavides requested clarification from special counsel on <br />Agency's exposure if item reconsidered and questioned whether other <br />jurisdictions have had similar situations. Mr. Dorsey said no. Law firm is conflict <br />of interest experts and have not had experience with re-votes. <br />Agency member Tinajero stated that he had written a letter to the Mayor <br />requesting reconsideration of the matter when he found out about possible <br />conflict of interest; has not raised money since being elected; believes in <br />transparency; Agency members on the dais are not conflicted; and would like to <br />rectify the situation. Made motion to reconsider and was seconded by Agency <br />member Benavides. <br />Agency member Benavides commented on issues of transparency and full <br />disclosure, referred to as sunshine ordinances; asked that item be brought back <br />• to the Council for consideration in 60 days with research on what other <br />jurisdictions have done to ensure public trust and also include clarification on <br />CRA MINUTES 3 OCTOBER 4, 2010