Laserfiche WebLink
1A. MINUTES OF JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 <br />MOTION: Approve revised Minutes. <br />1 B. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 2010 <br />MOTION: Approve revised Minutes. <br />2. EXCUSED ABSENCES -None <br />*** END OF CONSENT CALENDAR *** <br />BUSINESS CALENDAR <br />3. MODIFICATIONS TO THE DOWNTOWN FACADE IMPROVEMENT REBATE <br />PROGRAM <br />Agency members Sarmiento, Benavides, and Tinajero noted potential Conflicts of <br />Interests for the record. Member Sarmiento abstained on Item due to a potential <br />Political Reform Act conflict of interest because he represents clients with real <br />property potentially affected by the action and in close proximity to the projects <br />which are affected by the action. Due to potential campaign contribution conflicts of <br />interest, Members Benavides and Tinajero abstained. They all left the room and <br />did not participate in the discussion. <br />City Attorney Fletcher noted for a campaign contribution conflict to exist under <br />Charter Section 425 that contributor must have a direct, foreseeable financial <br />interest and not a mere possibility involved in the decision. He clarified that it is too <br />speculative to find that merely because Councilmember Martinez received a <br />contribution from Stewart Sound Inc. which is owned by an individual, whose family <br />trust also has a partial interest in a company that own a building located in <br />downtown Santa Ana, to create a conflict where the company has not applied for a <br />fagade rebate in the past or expressed any intention to do so. In the case of Mayor <br />Pulido, who had abstained in the past for possible conflict in property interest, he <br />noted that the fagade easement program does not cover the muffler shop property <br />therefore the Mayor does not have a conflict. <br />Vice Chair Alvarez, supports the Rebate Fagade Program, but expressed <br />disappointment as to how the program has been handled and how staff has failed <br />to notify all businesses. Opined that only the Downtown Inc. Board had been <br />notified and not all businesses given an opportunity to participate. Requested that <br />staff provide information in three languages -English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. <br />In comparison, the South Main Street Area Program was a success and noted the <br />difference in results. The legislative intent of the Rebate Program was to assist <br />CRA MINUTES 2 OCTOBER 18, 2010 L <br />