Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCVRC Min 2011/06/09MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) Date: June 9, 2011 4:00 P.M. The Regular Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation was called to order at 4:04 p.m. in the Human Resources Training Room, B111 & B112, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Bldg. 300, Chula Vista, California CVRC ROLL CALL PRESENT: Directors Cannon, Flores, Paul, Salas and Watson ABSENT: Directors Desrochers, Munoz ALSO PRESENT: Deputy City Manager/Development Services Director Halbert, Deputy City Attorney Shirey, Senior Administrative Secretary Laughlin, and public citizen Eazl Jentz PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE CONSENT CALENDAR 1. ELECTION OF NEW VICE-CHAIR Director Lewis was elected Chair of the CVRC at the October 14, 2010 meeting and Rafael Munoz was elected Vice-Chair. Due to the resignation of Chair Lewis, Director Munoz was then elected Chair at the April 28, 2011 CVRC meeting. It is now necessary to elect aVice-Chair to replace Director Munoz. Director Salas nominated Director Cannon to be Vice-Chair and the motion carried 4-0- 2-1 with Director Cannon abstaining and Directors Munoz and Desrochers absent. In the absence of Chair Munoz, Vice-Chair Cannon then took control of the meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 9, 2010, January 27, 2011 and April 28, 2011. There was a correction to the minutes of January 13, 2011 (the date was incorrect - it should have been January 27, 2011 and the name of Director Flores was added to Directors present list). There was no quorum and the approval of minutes was continued to the next meeting. Page 1 of3 CVRC-Minutes-June 9,20ll PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none 3. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION -THE FUTURE OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION The Development Oversight Committee recently recommended that the design review function be contained within one design review body which would result in the elimination of this function from the CVRC. Discussion of this recommendation and possible strategies to address it followed. CEO Halbert started the workshop with saying that the conversation regarding the role of the CVRC began when the City started talking about Development Review Streamlining. Some action has already been taken to remove some of the review that CVRC did. The reason for that is that the City is trying to get to a place where it can broaden community input into the design review process and minimize the amount of formal Board or Council action. He explained that it was previously a lengthy process and that the role of the Planning Commission was included in the charter. Through the actions of the CVRC and Council, CVRC has been pulled out of that process. The only function that CVRC currently has in the process is the design review within a project area. If outside of the project area, it would fall to the Design Review Board. The Oversight Committee decided that if there is to be a design review decision maker, there should be consistency through the community and there should be one decision making process, regardless of where the project is located. That is how they came to remove the design review function from the CVRC and vest it with the Design Review Board. The issue of should CVRC dissolve comes from the question of: If you remove the design review function from CVRC, what is the role of CVRC at that point? If that happened, we would - at a staff level -set up a committee for "redevelopment" or "reinvestment" which would then function like the Oversight Committee. It would be a committee that would provide recommendations and professional support to staff. The pros are that as a staff formed committee, it is not subject to the Brown Act. If it's a Council formed committee, it is subject to the Brown Act. The ability to meet on a confidential basis with a group of 7 professionals and staff is there. The way it has worked over the last couple of years is that we would sit with only a couple of CVRC members. It would be highly valuable to sit will all 7 members for input. Page 2 of 3 CVRC-Minutes -June 9, 2011 The con is the fact that we aren't subject to the Brown Act. We don't have to agendise our conversations and they aze not as transparent as they aze when you have a Council appointed board. This information was provide a framework for the Board's conversation. CVRC will go to a workshop with Council in August and they will ultimately make a decision as to which way they want to go. The matter was opened for discussion by the Board. 4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT There was none 5. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT There was none 6. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS There were none ADJOURNMENT At 5:23 p.m., Vice-Chair Cannon adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of June 23, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Eric Crockett, Secretary ~, G~'° L~O~sy ' ~ CVRC m ~Fi/15/2pps ~ ~F ~ a~., c o - ,' a~m,w~' : 1~~~'~ ~',r .t~L~l~ Page 3 of 3 CVRC -Minutes -June 9, 2011