My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-04-2010 CRA
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
SUCCESOR AGENCY(formerly Community Redevelopment Agency)
>
COMMUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (1974-2012)
>
2010-2012
>
2010 Minutes
>
10-04-2010 CRA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 1:13:47 PM
Creation date
10/22/2010 9:34:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Minutes
Date
10/4/2010
Destruction Year
P
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
codes regarding campaign contribution - what defines a violation, and what <br />remedies, if any, exist. <br />Agency member Sarmiento opined that City regulations on campaign <br />contributions are confusing - lack clarity and remedy; revote would cause more <br />harm than good and expose City to potential litigation. Project is a good project <br />that will offer opportunities for residents -provide low income housing, public <br />transportation; affordable rental units, open space, provide for dignified housing; <br />and a community center; stalling project will be jeopardized with revote and <br />statute of limitations will be created; democracy established on checks and <br />balances; need to move forward as project stands. He would not support the <br />motion. <br />Agency member Bustamante inquired about the constitutionality of the Charter <br />section that prevents members from voting because of campaign contributions. <br />Mr. Dorsey indicated that in some cases Courts have held that campaign <br />contributions cannot give given rise to direct conflicts of interests, but none have <br />addresses a local ordinance such as here. <br />Mr. Fletcher said that cases in question pre-date the City's Charter provision and <br />that they are regarding public hearings where developers made a contribution <br />that would not disqualify member from voting - fundamental first amendment <br />rights. He stated that because of such cases Santa Ana's provisions should be <br />narrowly interpreted the provisions so as to maximize and protect first <br />amendment rights and minimize impairment on functions of the council; need <br />regulations clarified on campaign contributions. <br />Agency member Benavides said that project is sought after by the community <br />and intent of motion is to clear votes. <br />Executive Director Cindy Nelson indicated that affordable housing would be in <br />jeopardy if item re-voted; community center is on school district property and not <br />part of the developer's responsibility; preliminary steps on design and approvals <br />by the Agency are forthcoming; open space (park) would require additional <br />acquisitions; child care located in rental portion of the project would also be <br />jeopardized; development projects include: affordable housing units, rental <br />homes; open space, child care, community room, and neighborhood serving <br />retail uses. <br />Chair Bustamante called for the question. <br />MOTION: Consider rescission of the Disposition and Development <br />Agreement with Santa Ana Station District LLC (Developer), subject to <br />Developer's consent, and re-submittal of the Disposition and Development <br />Agreement for Agency Board approval at a future date. <br />MOTION: Tinajero SECOND: Benavides <br />*Motion failed 2-2 vote (Bustamante and Sarmiento, No). <br />CRA MINUTES 4 OCTOBER 4, 2010
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.