Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-24 CRC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR LAr MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION J nua�ry 4, 2006 City Attorney's Conference Doom 4:00 p. m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Harriet Acton, Cheryl Cox, Humberto Peraza, Jr., William Richter, N rm Tooth man MEMBERS ABSENT: Armida Martin del Campo STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Wagner dull 1. Roil Call. The roll was called and members were noted as present or absent as indicated above. Chair Acton welcomed the two new members of the Commission, William Richter and Norma Tooth roan, 2. Approval of Minutes. It was i S C C xlPora a to approve the minutes of the April 18, 2005 meeting as presented. 3. Consideration of Deferral from City Council regarding Section 300 of the City Charter Related to Filing Council Vacancies Chair Acton inquired if all Commission members had a copy of the Charter. Having determined that they did, the item was opened for discussion. Attorney Hull referred to a memo presented to the Commission outlining the history of this item. She explained that during the recent appointment process to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Councilwoman Davis, a number of issues arose. The issues raised by the City Council include: Should a vacancy be declared if the member is n active military duty or maternity leave? - When n should an unanticipated vacancy be filled by election or appointment? . Should there be minimum amount of time remaining in a term before an election or appointment should occur? b. Should the Council have more /less than thirty days to make an appointment? Can an appointee be prohibited from running in the next election What procedures should be used for the application and interviewing process when an appointment is to be made by the Council's Discussion ensued regarding declaring vacancies due to military or maternity leave, inasmuch as Charter Section 303 {A} does not specifically address these. Attorney Hull explained that the bulk of Council's concerns deal with the appointment process but during those discussions the issue of military and maternity leave arose as well. Attorney Hull explained that Section 303(8) of the Charter addresses anticipated vacancies and Section 303 (C) addresses unanticipated vacancies. Member Cox questioned whether the Council felt there was a need for a Charter amendment or the establishment of a Council policy. Attorney Hull responded that the two main issues were to determine if the provisions of Section 303(C) are adequate and, beyond that, were questions of how an interview and application haft r Review Commission 1 January 24, 2006 process would proceed. Both the Charter section and Council policy were discussed, inasmuch as it was felt that not everything was appropriate to be set out in the Charter, e.g., the i nte rview process might be better established by Council policy. Member Richter inquired if any research had been done on the appointment policies of other cities. Attorney Hull responded that a survey could be done of jurisdictions of comparable size before the next Commission meeting, but that there are differences between charter cities (have their oven charters) and general laver cities (governed by State law). Member A t n said that Council has asked the Commission for recommendations in time for any proposed amendments to be placed on the ,dune ballot. There doesn't seem to be enough time to do that. Member Cox inquired what was the deadline for gefting an item on the June ballot. Attorney Hull replied that the Council would have to act on it by February 28, so the Commission would have to Grote on the proposed language by the second week in February. After the Council acts on it, there needs to be n analysis done for the ballot measures, and that needs to be completed by March 8. Member Cox asked if members of the public could provide input, and Attorney Hull responded that they could be present at the Council and Charter Review Commission meetings when the sterns are discussed. Attorney Hull then discussed the Council's request that the Commission consider e time frame for appointment versus election — hoer many months into a term or remaining in a term would affect this determination? They would like to have certain parameters to follow. Member T othrnan inquired as to the cost of a special election. Attorney Hull responded that if the election could be consolidated with a County election, the cost would range from $25,000 - $50,000 depending on the issue. if the City held its own special election, the cost would range from $100,000-$150,000 she has been told. Chair Acton asked that, rather than waiting for the Public Comments portion of thb agenda for interested parties to speak on this issue, they come forward at this time. Councilman Steve Ca taneda thanked the members of the Charter Review r Commission for coring together so quickly. He explained that the purpose of the Council referring this issue to the Commission is so that a fair, aboveboard and clear -cut process is in place and the citizens of Chula Vista can understand ghat the rules are and that there is enough time to rake good judgments. Appointing someone as a Councilrnmbr is probably the most important decision the City Council can make. Thorn need to be guidelines as to when the Council rakes the appointment and when the people deserve to have an election. It was his feeling that the public needs to kno w there is a process in place, which cannot be manipulated, and the people have confidence in its integrity. He also questioned whether or not someone who is appointed can run for election. Historically, the incumbent has the advantage and, even if appointees cannot legally be prohibited from running for the seat, Mr. Castaneda believes the appointee should step down at the end of his /her appointed term. He once again thanked the Commission for conducting this meeting, Member Cox questioned whether his presentation today was representative of the priers of the entire City Council. He responded that the Council had unanimously agreed that the issues brought forward were f concern to all of them, but that the viers he presented were his own. Charter Review Conunission 2 January 24, 2006 Member Cox then questioned the City Attorney regarding Item 2 in the January 24 memo, which indicates, "Notwithstanding the requirement to call a special election, if after that election the term would be nine months or less, the council shall not call an election. ,, That language is part of the Charter at this point; she wondered if Ceun ilme ber Castaneda was aware of this nine month prevision and if he wished to change it. He responded that his concern was not when they City would be restricted from calling an election but rather when it would be compelled to held an election. Sandy Duncan, Chula vista resident, asked that the Commission take their time in reviewing this issue and do a thorough job without rushing to get it on the ballot. She also hoped that the procedure for the intervie w process would be studied, and that appointees not be shown on the ballot as incumbents. Nick Aguilar, 1028 Surrey Drive, felt that it was vitally important to ensure that the appointment process be a transparent one in order to avoid any misperceptions by the public. He asked if the Commission would also look at the appointment process for Commissioners as well as Council applicants. Member Cox questioned Mr. Aguilar about the County Board of Education and their process for appointment. He explained the County's process in detail. Member Acton requested clarification of his request that the Commission look at the appointment process for Commissioners, i.e., was it his desire to have the process for appointing Commissioners to be the same process as for appointing C un ilr er bers. He discussed previous Commission appointments made by the Council and ghat he perceived were embarrassing situations which arose. John Deese, 3579 Lo a ita , Bonita, spoke regarding the military leave issue. It was his belief that the Military Act would preempt the City Charter in this instance. He agreed that the Council _ could make an interim appointment for someone recalled to active duty, and there certainly would be no reed for an election. Member Cox wondered if this wording should be included in the Charter, e.g., "Any questions regarding military leave are addressed in Military Act Section , . .3i Attorney Hull felt this was unnecessary inasmuch as the Military Cede sections could change over time and would require the City to be aware of that. She will, however, make the Council aware of those provisions. There being no further comments from the public, the Commissioners returned to consideration of Item 3. Member Cox stated that she agreed with Ms. Duncan about not being rushed, but that the Commission should take a look at the four issues Council has requested the Commissioners to study. She also asked staff to prepare a strikeout, redlined version of the Charter delineating the proposed charges. It was Member o 's interpretation that Item I (military and maternity leave) is addressed by the Military Act and Human relations legislation. Attorney Hull concurred. Regarding Item 2, "When should an anticipated vacancy be filled by election or appointment? ; The Charter states that if there is nine months between the time of the vacancy and the time remaining in the tern, the Council shall not call an election. The second part of that, "Should there be a minimum um amount of time remaining in a tern before an election or appointment should occur? She believed the Charter had answered that — nine months. The Attorney explained that it actually may take up to one year because of the time required to put together the election. Member Cox asked if there was any need to change the Charter on this? Discussion ensued among the commissioners regarding the interpretation of this section. The Attorney clarified that if there is less than nine months left in the term, you Charter Review Conunission January 24, 2006 cannot call a special election; if, however, there are more than nine months left the Council may or may not call a special election (there is no mandatory provision. Member Richter asked if there was any information on what the other 18 cities in the County do. Member Peraza also indicated he could like to have this information prior to making recommendation t Council inasmuch as he felt the power to appoint is a very important process in a democracy. 2b questions, "Should the Council have more /less than thirty days to make an appointment? Attorney Dull reported that the Charter states the Council has 30 days to use their best efforts to make an appointment and, if they can't come to decision within that tire, then a special election should be held. The question raised by the Council was if 30 days was enough time. She explained that in the case of the most recent appointment, due to the holidays and other commitments the Council did the appointment in less time. Member Peraza wondered if the Charter was the best place for the appointment procedure to be addressed. Attorney Hull suggested it could be placed in the Municipal Code section on Elections or the Council Policy Manual, which would allow more flexibility for change. Those would be two options for the Commission to consider. Member Cox stated she agreed with Mr. Richter that it was important to look at what other cities have in place. Attorney Hull will try to get this information before the next meeting. Item 3 deals with the question, "Can an appointee be prohibited from running in the next election?" Member Cox indicated that, although this night be desirable, it is not legal. Attorney Hull stated that there is currently a provision within the City Charter that an appointee can serve two fall terms if he /she is appointed to till a term with less than two years remaining. There are some limitations that might be placed, i.e., similar to terra limits or a hiatus, but those are all issues that would have to be studied in detail and the timeframe is too short. The Attorney's Office can draft some language if this is the Commission's intention. Item 4 asks, "What procedures should be used for the application and interviewing process when an appointment is to be made by the Council?" and a What information should be included in the application? Member mber Cox asked if the Commission could be provided with a copy of the application form. She felt it would be helpful to know ghat it included on the form? Attorney Dull will provide this information. Member Cox felt it would be helpful to compare the application forms for the other Commissions as well. Attorney Hull will make that available as well, Sandy Duncan indicated that in the past, vacancies on certain Commissions have not been filled for a lengthy period of time. She asked the Commission to include a timeframe for when appointments had to be crude. The Commission agreed that this was an excellent idea. 4. Consideration of proposed City Charter amendment re ardin the City's use of Eminent Domain. Attorney Hull explained that outside attorney, Linda Bartz, will be advising the Commission on this issue. This item involves an eminent domain initiative being circulated by "Chula Vistans for Private Property Protection and is directed at curtailing the City's ability to ercis the poorer of eminent domain. They are collecting signatures to get this item placed on the June ballot. It proposes to prohibit the City from using eminent domain to address economic blighting conditions. Charter Review Commission 4 January 4, 2006 Additionally, it will prevent the City from taking any actions or supporting any action of any other agency seeking to condemn private property for private redevelopment purposes. lender this measure the city will still be able to use the eminent domain process to secure property for public improvements, provided the city holds the property for no less than ten 1 years. The intent of the initiative is to prohibit the City from utilizing eminent domain to make property available for private development, and will require the City to submit to the voters at a general municipal election any matter v here the city desires to utilize eminent domain on private property. This petition is imilar to many others being circulated throughout the country in response to a Connecticut eminent domain case. In California eminent domain provides for just compensation and property may only be for public use or necessity. Attorney Bartz explained the process the City of Chula Vista uses to accomplish eminent domain. In addition to the limitations placed by the State, Chula Vista has in place additional limitations. In the past 10 years the City has only taken one piece of property through eminent domain, and that was from the Otay Land Company for open space. The Redevelopment velopment Agency in the adoption of the Redevelopment Plant has included language that they cannot use eminent domain to take residential property in a residential zone. She explained that the Commission could choose to take a position or not on this initiative, and recommend any changes to the language. Member Cox inquired if this was an amendment to the charter, and the attorney responded it was adding two new Charter sections. She questioned whether the Council has asked staff to educate the public on what the charter currently has in place. It was her concern that people might misunderstand or fear the City's eminent domain policy. If passed by the citizens, then the net step would be to adopt a new charter amendment to address those issues. Member Acton asked what is the City's interpretation of blight. Attorney Bartz responded that under Redevelopment laver when an area is proposed as a Redevelopment Plan area, that has to go through a public hearing process before being adopted. After adoption there is a 90 day tic eframe to challenge lt. Then the whole plan area is deemed blighted even if all of the properties in that area do not meet that definition. This is to allow for revitalization of the area. Attorney Bartz suggested that staff could cone back to the Comm- ission at their nett meeting with some more information on blight and maybe present some more options. Members of the audience in attendance for t is item were invited to come forth with. comments at this tine. Steve Haskins, Attorney, 4045 Bonita Road, d, Chula Vista, was at the meeting representing the group circulating the petition, Chula Vitns for Private Property Protection to present their vie wpoint. He stated that over 14,000 people have signed the petition in the last five weeks. According to Mr. Haskins, the entire eminent domain process is unfair to the property owner and the "fair" value really is not. Although it might be true that only one case has gone through to trial, there are many cases that have not gone that far because they are small property owners who cannot afford an attorney so they settle. He also referred to the statement that the city cannot use eminent domain to take private property. In fact} that is only the case in owner occupied residential properties if they are already zoned residential. Attorney Bartz explained that the City uses an evaluator to come up with an offer, and then the property owners hire their own property appraiser, and the resulting evaluations are usually far apart. In the cases where the City has settled, they have in all instances paid more than the original evaluation. Attorney Bartz clarified that a property in a residential zone could not be taken foreminent domain even if it was not owner occupied. Residences being rented by tenants are protected as Charter Review Commission January , 2006 well as owner occupied properties — however n owner occupied property in a commercial zone is not protected. Member Richter asked if there were records of how many ttl ment there may have been when residents felt threatened by eminent domain. Staff reported that in all 14 resolutions of necessity were adopted affecting about 30 properties, and all reached amicable settlements. Attorney Bartz further commented that the City provides relocation assistance for displaced residents. Member Cox wanted to know what action the Council was looking for the Commission to take. Attorney Hull responded that she believed it was the Council's intent just to make the Commission aware of the petition in order that they could provide any input they night like the Council to have. Ms. Jackie Lancaster, 639 East J Street, had two questions. She clarified her understanding that blight is determined when an area is adopted as a Redevelopment Area and then there is D day period to challenge that. if not challenged, the entire area is deemed blighted and it can be redeveloped. Attorney Bartz explained that if something is acquired through eminent domain within the Redevelopment Area, there is particular project involved. When that is acquired there is hearing on a resolution of necessity and the owner can be heard there and there can be a further challenge In court. lbs. Lancaster then inquired if a residential zone is rezoned through General Plan Amendment, do those residences considered protected from eminent domain lose their protection? Attorney Bartz agreed that was true, but that a number of public hearings would have to be held before e zoning change could be aide. The r ai si n members requested that maps be provided before the next meeting indicating where the Redevelopment Ar s are, and the Urban Core. Ned Ard nl F 1120 Second Avenue, felt that the main concern evidenced appeared to be towards residential properties, but there are a number of business properties being taken by eminent domain as gall. He felt the small businesses were being overlooked, and they provide employment opportunities for members of the community. Often when they are relocated to other higher priced areas, they go bankrupt. Jerry Scott, 462 E Street, offered his opinion that the Commission has been asked to d "damage control" for the City Council, and there was no clear direction for action. Earl J nt , 611 Westy Plana, referred to the comments made about rezoning, and his concern that many residential areas will be rezoned. 5. New Business. None. 6. Public Comments. None. 7. Members' Comments. 1►•m 6. Adjournment. Charter Review Commission 6 January 24, 2006 Chair A t n asked if the members could seta date for th next meeting. The Attorney reminded therms that if the Commission wishes to get any Charter changes on the June ballot, action rust be taken before February . Member r Co explained to the new Commissioners that the Commission had been trying to set fixed day and time for meetings and had arrived at Mondays at 4:00 p.m. She asked if that time worked for the new Commissioners and they were available. NEXT MEETING: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27 @ 4:00 P.M. in the Executive Conference Room MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:12 p.m. err n Barbieri Fie rding Secretary Charter Review Commission 7 January 24, 2006